I’ll also refer you to post 31 where it lays out that marriage is a state issue, not a SC issue- The 14’th amendment is a SC issue to determine if rights are being violated, and the SC can render an OPINION on the issue, but it can not establish laws concerning marriage (again, only congress can do so), only a non binding opinion because States establish marriage laws as allowed by congress (ie: they can’t prevent Hispanic folks from being married simply because they are Hispanic because racism is not legal- however, they ARE allowed to ban people who practice deviant lifestyles from marrying because practicing deviant lifestyles is a choice, not a trait or class of people- it’s not genetic)
You're contradicting yourself. If the Supreme Court can declare state marriage laws unconstitutional when they are racially discriminatory, then they can do more than render a "non-binding" opinion-- they can issue a binding order. That's exactly what they did in Loving v. Virginia in 1967-- they didn't render a "non-binding opinion" that anti-miscegenation laws were unconstitutional; they ordered states to allow racially-mixed couples to marry. (Some Southern states didn't formally repeal their anti-miscegenation laws until well into the 21st Century, but that didn't mean that blacks and whites couldn't marry in those states, or that no one could get married in those states.)
Your point about gays being different from Hispanics has nothing to do with the Supreme Court's jurisdiction to interpret the 14th Amendment; you're just disagreeing with their interpretation. (As it happens, so do I, but that doesn't mean the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction.)