To those who keep arguing the bans should be enforceable because only x% support it- that is a valid point but only if you presuppose the action does not violate the rights of another. Otherwise you turn a republic protecting individual rights into simple rule by the majority with no rights. Thus the question becomes whether any rights are violated by the ban. As shown in cases like Loving, marriage is a fundamental right according to SCOTUS. The Equal Protection clause requires application of fundamental rights equally across citizens. A fundamental right can only be overcome by the government through meeting an incredibly high burden. Ultimately the inky way you can oppose these decisions overturning bans on same sex marriage is if you overturn the rpecedent upon which they rely (e.g. loving) and are you really advocating things like banning interracial marriage (which would happen in the absence of loving)?
I will never understand how so many claim to be in favor of less government and more individual rights but if it applies to anything someone else does that makes them feel iffy about their own lives or beliefs without any direct physical harm, they demand the government step in at once.