> Your argument seems to be that the Supreme Court shouldn't say that homosexuals can marry in all states because there may be some state that doesn't recognize any marriages and therefore doesn't violate the equal protection clause.
That is not at all my argument.
“The Court, in this decision, holds same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry in all States. It follows that the Court also must hold - and it now does hold - that there is no lawful basis for a State to refuse to recognize a lawful same-sex marriage performed in another State on the ground of its same-sex character.” - Obergefell
Here is the error:
“The Court, in this decision, holds same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry in all States.”
This goes too far. This commandeers the legislative process of the States. The federal government has no say in marriage laws, laws which have always been within the purview of the States. No court, least of all the USSC, has the authority to legislate.
There may be a legitimate Art IV basis for the USSC declaration that “there is no lawful basis for a State to refuse to recognize a lawful same-sex marriage performed in another State on the ground of its same-sex character”, although I am not convinced. This would strike Ky. Rev. Stat. 402.045 Same-sex marriage in another jurisdiction void and unenforceable, but it does not touch other provisions of Kentucky's marriage statutes.
Kentucky can not be forced to issue marriage licenses contrary to its laws, or to have it's laws written for them by the federal Supreme Court.
I’ll agree with you that the Court’s language went too far (farther than they wanted it to) if there are states that don’t recognize heterosexual marriages. The problem is, there isn’t any such states.
Also, the court is saying, and you and I have to accept it, that they don’t care if you or I disagree with their opinion. They don’t care!