[CCIP]

And sentiment aside, if you read the actual text of the ruling ( http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions...4-556_3204.pdf ), there is an important legal dimension to the opinion on Oberfeld v. Hodges that I think is well-argued and only makes sense in the context of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

The final paragraph of the opinion, making its rounds on social media, is as follows:

No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right. The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is reversed.

It is so ordered.

Emphasis mine. Again, setting sentiment and activism aside, I am not sure there's any constitutional grounds for withholding those rights. And my view is that even if you're not particularly into gay people's own interests, this does help reinforce everyone's equal access to legal aspects of marriage (which affects things like custody and visitation rights, inheritance, taxes, insurance, etc.) which are significant. On the religious side, well, religious organizations have their own right to work out their stance, whatever it is. But I think the legal side here is important to keep level. The opinion outlines that as well:

Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered. The same is true of those who oppose same-sex marriage for other reasons. In turn, those who believe allowing same sex marriage is proper or indeed essential, whether as a matter of religious conviction or secular belief, may engage those who disagree with their view in an open and searching debate. The Constitution, however, does not permit the State to bar same-sex couples from marriage on the same terms as accorded to couples of the opposite sex.

Of course, not everyone agrees. For example, Justice Roberts, dissenting, has this to say in his conclusion:

If you are among the many Americans—of whatever sexual orientation—who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today’s decision. Celebrate
the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it.
I respectfully dissent.