Those probably aren’t going anywhere. Why? Technically, the Constitution does not guarantee a ‘right’ be marriage even though in some decisions, dicta in the majority opinion has referred to marriage as ‘right.’ In reality though, in the cases where the court has weighed in on marriage, like Loving & Windsor, those central legal holdings in those decisions were really based on 5A and 14A considerations. IOW, essentially states have the right to regulate marriage, but they don’t have the right to structure those regulations in a way that discriminates on the basis of religion, race or sexual orientation (anymore).
If marriage were a de jure constitutional right, then even cousins would be allowed to marry or siblings or children & parents. But, they aren’t because it’s not really an enumerated ‘right,’ even though for most practical purposes, it’s a de facto right.
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3949958/posts
Thanks for the informed response, but it seems that since in Obergefell v. Hodges the liberal majority of SCOTUS horrendously ruled that the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples by both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, then it seems to consider homosexual marriage to be a constitutional right, though as with guns ownership, some local regulation is allowed.