Have you read Kentucky's marriage Statutes?
Have you read Roberts' dissent?
I disagree with the opinion, but nowhere in it did the court say that the entire marriage statute was unconstitutional, that would be silly.
The entire idea that two men or two women can marry each other is silly. What the SCOTUS did was not only silly, IT WAS DISASTEROUS!
The SCOTUS did not think of the ramifications that overturning the very foundation of the institution of marriage before they did it.
Or maybe they did. Maybe their intention (and the intention of the Gaystapo) was to end the whole institution of marriage because it has a religious foundation.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdfthe State laws challenged by Petitioners in these cases are now held invalid to the extent they exclude same-sex couples from civil marriage on the same terms and conditions as opposite-sex couples.
Elsewhere:
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 performedin another State on the ground of its same-sex character.
It is clear that Robert's wasn't speaking theoretically when he said the marriage laws of most states were set aside by the Obergefell decision.
He was obviously relying on the words of Justice Kennedy in the majority decision.