There's lots of injustices. I'm by necessity disregarding almost all of them. I'm not a court.
When choosing how to allocate my capacity for moral outrage, it's perfectly valid to give preference to people who are not actively pursuing the cause of taking away my rights.
In other words, it's ridiculous if the court is actually getting away with not returning the bond, but as a matter of not shooting myself in the foot, the author of the article shouldn't expect me to go to the barricades with him to push through his interpretation of the constitutional invalidity of traffic tickets only so he can turn around and fuck me over next, if he doesn't run me over first, when I could be on way more important barricades to help people suffering way worse.
You're comparing fighting a traffic ticket to the rights of same-sex marriages?
If an author has a stance on removing the rights of someone just because of their sexual preferences - you're right, I'm calling them out on it. I am in no way blocking their right to their own opinion, but adding my own.
For this author, the two subjects are very much entwined and related.
That alone is wrong, but that you state it with such conviction and self-awareness is disturbing.