Since marriages have always been subject to annulment if never consummated by a procreational act (that is a normal sexual act), there are various ways that States can fight back against the Supreme Court ruling, forcing additional litigation of the ultimate issue.
Let me just suggest one course, and appeal to the imagination of the wise folk here at Free Republic.
It is common in many marriage ceremonies, to offer a chance for someone to object to a marriage, or forever hold their peace. Well, what about a State law, calling for a public ombudsman with power to legally challenge any would be married couple, on the basis of a suspicion that they were simply unable to consummate a marriage. (Obviously if the couple are in their late teens or twenties, there would be no challenge, unless they were known to lack the necessary genitalia for normal sexuality.)
This approach would have an obvious intent, of course. But it would still focus attention on the actual circumstances of a case, rather than the simple word game around the meaningless term (when you are actually dealing with biology) of "equality." (All couples are not equally suited to the mating process, as understood throughout human history.)
And they should. Force the definition of the word "consummation" to be litigated all the way back up to the Supreme Court. Make them define "consummation" as poop pushing. Make them deal with dirty things in a way they can't hide. Put the shame back on them.
This approach would have an obvious intent, of course. But it would still focus attention on the actual circumstances of a case, rather than the simple word game around the meaningless term (when you are actually dealing with biology) of "equality." (All couples are not equally suited to the mating process, as understood throughout human history.)
They would simply hold their "ceremonies" outside the reach of people who could object on those grounds. I also do not think such objections are recognized as a matter of state law.