That’s like saying that the gargantuan all-encompassing federal monster is perfectly fine because it was all slipped in a piece at a time under the Commerce Clause. The existence of 99% of the current federal government is a direct violation of the Constitution, and has nothing to do with making commerce “regular”, and you have to be at least as inventive as the Court was in “discovering” a right to abortion in “discovering” a right to “gay marriage.”
Unless you believe that words have no meaning, you must realize that the equal protection clause can at best only ensure that EXISTING rights are uniformly extended to all. But the definition of what constitutes “marriage” matters greatly here, and no such right for homosexuals to “marry” has ever existed, because by the very definition of the word “marriage” it excludes anyone other than a man and a woman (with the possible exception of polygamous “marriages” in some places). The Court can only determine whether the law is fairly extending EXISTING, actual rights to all; it cannot INVENT a new “right” out of whole cloth. It cannot redefine universally-understood terms to fit its desired social outcome, which is exactly what was done in Obergfell. At a bare minimum, you would have to point me to the law passed by Congress that defined this new “right” that the Court sought to extend to everyone, and you cannot.
Besides, homosexuals already have the very same right to marry as does everyone else - they can marry any person of the opposite sex that they choose, so long as that person is of legal age. Obergfell wasn’t about “equal protection” in any way; it was about a devious ploy to redefine a timeless institution that is the very foundation of civil society.
“Obergfell wasn’t about “equal protection” in any way; it was about a devious ploy to redefine a timeless institution that is the very foundation of civil society.”
Equal Protection was the basis of the decision.
It will stand.
It doesn’t really what what you or I think of it.