Held: The Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-State. Pp. 3–28.
From legal dictionary, "Saving Clause"
The provision in a statute, sometimes referred to as the severability clause, that rescues the balance of the statute from a declaration of unconstitutionality if one or more parts are invalidated.
USSC in Obergefell held:
“The Court, in this decision, holds same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry in all States. 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 performed in another State on the ground of its same-sex character.”
For the moment I will stipulate to this part: “there is no lawful basis for a State to refuse to recognize a lawful same-sex marriage performed in another State on the ground of its same-sex character”
Here is the error:
“The Court, in this decision, holds same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry in all States.”
This commandeers the legislative process of the States. The federal government has no say in marriage laws, laws which have always been within the purview of the States.
The people of Kentucky have decided that marriage is between man & woman.
There is no 14th Amend “equal protection” issue, the advocates of this novel definition of “marriage” are free to avail themselves of the process prescribed by Kentucky law to change the laws to incorporate this novel description. This in no way inhibits or infringes upon any persons rights of association or their conjugal rights.
There is no *right* to legal recognition of any grouping of persons assembled for whatever purpose.
Judges are not Legislators.