From "Dredd Scott" onwards, SCOTUS has almost always blown with the wind. Its rulings reflect elite opinion of the time, not the actual text of the constitution. So the huge fuss the Left and their media henchmen have been making about homosexual marriage had a predictable result. The Left-leaning justices would have been shunned by all their friends had they decided otherwise.
The shred of justification that they used for the decision is from the first section of the 14th Amendment: "nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws".
But there is no protection that homosexual marriage confers. There are some privileges connected with marriage but privileges are not protections. And in any case, civil unions offered in many jurisdictions do provide the same privileges as marriage. So the judicial reasoning was aimed to produce a result, not to offer an honest interpretation. Nothing new there.
If anything, though, the reasoning was less slippery than the reasoning behind the legalization of abortion in "Roe vs Wade". The homosexual marriage ruling was just routine dishonesty.
So there is no reason why the SCOTUS ruling should be respected. If they can slip and slide around the matter so can others. And there is an easy way for conservative State governments to do so. What I have in mind would be perfectly legal and proper -- though it would provoke a banshee scream of rage from the Left. How do I know that? Because something similar was proposed in an Australian jurisdiction (the ACT) a few year ago -- and was greeted with horror by homosexuals.
Here is what you do: Both homosexuals and heterosexuals get the same marriage certificate -- with just one difference: The certificate received by heterosexuals is simply headed "Marriage Certificate" but the certificate received by homosexuals would be headed "Homosexual Marriage Certificate". There is nothing in the SCOTUS judgement to prevent that as far as I can see.
The legal wording to be enacted by the State governments would be something along the following lines: "To avoid confusion, all official documentation issued in connection with same-sex marriages shall clearly refer to the marriage as a "homosexual marriage".
No reasonable person could object to that but the Left are not reasonable so the uproar would be great. The real and perverse goal behind the homosexual marriage issue -- which is to deny an obvious difference -- would be defeated. The resultant uproar would undoubtedly send the matter back to SCOTUS eventually but even SCOTUS might be hard put to find something wrong with that wording. They might cry "discrimination" but nothing has been withheld, denied or refused.
As a libertarian, of course, I don't care either way. I think marriage should be a matter either of private contract or a religious sacrament. I see no need for it to be licensed or in any way regulated by any government. For most of human history it has been purely a religious matter, with only churches or other religious bodies keeping a record of it
And because of harsh divorce laws, many couples do not marry now anyway. Your de facto wife is simply referred to as your "fiancee" and nobody thinks anything of it. That is particularly so in Britain. When women complain that men "won't commit", they can thank the feminists who have made the divorce laws so intimidating to men. Stories of women winning big out of divorce appear in the papers almost daily so few men can be unaware of the dangers in marrying. It will be amusing to see the same laws hitting homosexual marriages.
And with the daily horrors being perpetrated by Muslim fanatics in Europe, Africa and the Middle East, surely there are more important matters for us to attend to. Repeated vicious slaughter surely matters much more than what homosexuals do with their penises. Homosexuality is certainly a matter of indifference to me.