The question isn’t whether same sex marriage is constitutional but whether it is constitutionally required which of course it most certainly is NOT. The interpretation of the word “liberty” as a guarantee of federal and state licensure of same sex unions is crazy and would also require the licensure of incestuous unions, under age unions, polyamorous unions, with a sky is the limit which was never the intent or till recently the way the word “liberty” was applied. Also technically there is no prohibition of same sex unions nor punishment. The idea that because the government does not explicitly license a union that some how it is banning such union is idiotic. While one can make a case that same sex unions should be licensed the idea that same sex licensure should be guaranteed by the constitution is not just crazy but the product of derangement. Roe V Wade was another such decision that totally stood the Constitution on its head as did Kelo v. City of New London on the matters of property rights, and this would continue such lunacy and leave the whole of the constitution laid bare to even more direct attack by leftists who could leverage this precedent to find even more “rights” in the constitution. Even more troublesome is the idea that because one state licenses biologically correct marriage that some how it must recognize the licensure of any and all variants of pseudo marriage so if one state licenses polygamy then all states must license polygamy and on and on. The elitists in our country are putting us on a path to absolute disunity because this arbitrary defacto amendment by ruling is going to eventually tear this nation apart as did similar judicial oversteps which led to a Civil war.
RE: The question isn’t whether same sex marriage is constitutional but whether it is constitutionally required which of course it most certainly is NOT.
Eventually, the argument will touch the equal-protection clause. That’s what the pro-gay marriage folks are gearing up for.