People often object to laws or regulations they don't like by trotting out the Fourteenth Amendment as their apologetic. Fourteenth Amendment: No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The Supreme Court has ruled that same-sex marriage must be honored in every state; however, while most if not all states, as well as the U.S. Congress in the 1990s Defense of Marriage Act, have defined marriage by either statute, the DOM for instance, or state statutes/constitutions, the Constitution does not define marriage so a court – any court – can hardly make a ruling concerning it. Marriage is not like abortion, which is physically/medically defined. SCOTUS made a ruling (Roe vs. Wade) about abortion, accepting its obvious definition.
There are federal laws on the books, however, that deal with marriage not as a definition but as, ipso facto, defined by both tradition and Nature. In 1862, President Lincoln signed the Morrill Act, which made bigamy illegal. In 1882, President Arthur signed the Edmunds Anti-Polygamy Act, which made polygamy illegal. Co-habitation was the target in these cases, at least as a legal matter, but the inference is clear. There were to be no harems in the U.S., an obvious recognition of the fact that people are not animals.
Accruing to the recent SCOTUS ruling, any trio or otherwise multi-number group can now successfully sue any government that disallows any “marriage” arrangement. These groups could be made up of combinations of both gender and number. For instance, three homosexual men could marry four lesbians and part of the lurid whoopee would entail all the legal entitlements accorded to actual families.
This being the case, the Tenth Amendment comes into play, i.e., that states have the right to regulate/define what isn't the responsibility of the federal government. Marriage has never been the responsibility of the Constitution any more than drunkenness has. Each state, for instance, has its own laws defining the alcohol-content amount in a person's body vis-a-vis auto-driving impairment, no matter what any individual thinks.
The federal government (Department of Defense) makes rules regarding who can serve in the military, no matter if a one-armed guy demands to be a Navy Seal or National Guardsman because his rights can't be abridged. The Constitution allows sensible laws on both state and federal levels and most laws abridge somebody's perceived “privileges or immunities.”
Those self-righteous, politically correct citizens, legislators, justices, and bureaucrats who have been gloating over the action of SCOTUS are now facing far more than they bargained for. Laws concerning incest are now subject to being overturned. Brother may marry brother or sister in due time as all the ramifications of the recent action set in. Five people have decided that marriage will become virtually what anyone says it is and that any “personal” individual or group, no matter how lurid its makeup, cannot be denied either marriage or sexual activity by government, no matter how defiled or destructive, especially of children.
The can of worms opened by SCOTUS is even more problematic when all of the Fourteenth is considered, namely the final clause: nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Freedom of religion is guaranteed by the First Amendment, with no governmental abridgments allowed as long as physical harm or disturbing the peace is not a factor. If same-sex marriage is protected by the Constitution that same protection applies to the person who – account religious convictions – chooses not to deal with anything that's same-sex, i.e., not be coerced.
An appeals court has already ruled that a clothing company in Lexington, Ky., cannot be coerced into printing on wearing apparel what it perceives as a statement violating the company-owner's religious convictions. The court has also ruled that a children's-services agency in Kentucky may fire a homosexual for cause and is not required to hire homosexuals or lesbians. The SCOTUS has turned so-called “equal rights” commissions on their ears in this latest ruling.
The Court, not Congress, now makes laws.
And so it goes.