MARRIAGE EQUALITY NATIONWIDE

[Thumpalumpacus]

The fundamental right under question is not marriage itself.  I've mentioned it a couple of times already and would appreciate it if you read the entirety of my post with a modicum of comprehension.  The right under question in the gay-marriage discussion is the right to equal protection under the law.

1.  Your statement about the right to equal protection under the law shows you did not read the ruling whatsoever.  So let me help you out a bit (http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14p...6_3204.pdf).  

Page 2 (b)(2):
" The fundamental liberties protected by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause extend to certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices defining personal identity and beliefs"

Translation:  The due process clause protects a persons right to dignity in intimate choices.  

The due process clause makes no such protection and only requires the State exercise proper procedure in the application of law which will deny a person life, liberty (meaning freedom from incarceration), or property.

Page 4 (b)(3):
" The right of same-sex couples to marry is also derived from the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection. The Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause are connected in a profound way. Rights implicit in liberty and rights secured by equal protection may rest on different precepts and are not always coextensive, yet each may be instructive as to the meaning and reach of the other"

Translation:  Because the right to dignity is protected in the due process clause and the equal protection clause and due process clause are connected in a profound way (he does not describe the way nor has it ever been recognized they are connected in a profound way) then the due process clause protection implies there is some kind of equal protection clause protection.

This is to say there was no equal protection clause support for the ruling.  But since there is a sort of due process clause support there must be an equal protection support as well.  It is pointed out adeptly by Chief Justice Roberts that there was no equal protection violation or support for the ruling

In short the ruling was not based on equal protection under the law.  But rather on a BS argument to dignity that does not exist in the constitution.

You realize that due process is a subset of equal protection, right? It is a narrow and specialized form of it.