It doesn’t, and the 10th Amendment says that any power not specifically enumerated in the Constitution as a power of the federal government belongs to the States or to the people.
The State of Alabama defined marriage as the union between a man and a woman. A federal judge says the State can’t do that. It is up to that judge to show exactly where the Constitution enumerates the power of defining marriage to the federal government.
Can’t be done, because it’s not in there.
If they try going the “equal protection” route, then they have to say that a brother Constitutionally has to have the right to marry his sister “equally protected” also. A mother’s Constitutional right to marry her son has to have equal protection. Etc. If “equal protection” means that everybody has to be allowed everything, with no definitions, then the government has no right to define disability eligibility, and everybody’s “right” to receive disability has to be protected, regardless of whether they fit any definition of “disabled”. Etc.
This is about whether the Constitution allows any definitions to exist. Kind of like Obama’s amnesty decree is about whether the Constitution allows a BORDER to exist.
When post-modernism (everybody creates their own “truth” or reality) takes over the courts, everything is up for grabs. When that happens, the nation cannot continue to exist.
Basically if equal protection covers everything, differences in state laws disappear because state laws disappear. The ability of a state to define their own laws disappears.
On the plus side it will mean I can carry anywhere I want, open or concealed.
If equal protection covers the ability to marry, it covers the ability to carry.