That people can “define and express their identity” however they want in no way means that there exists a right to legal recognition of any grouping of persons assembled for whatever reason.
If a group of persons wishes to form a commercial venture they must comply the laws enacted by the elected legislature, laws which govern corporations. If a group of persons wishes to form a personal venture they must comply with the laws enacted by the elected legislature, laws which govern marriages. This is the process defined by law.
There is a process defined in law for changing law.
Throughout history in every major society marriage has been between man and woman, or man and women. Now comes a novel definition.
The advocates of this novel definition are free to avail themselves of the process prescribed by law to change the laws to incorporate this novel description. No advocate of this novel definition has followed the laws enacted by the elected legislature to have this novel definition incorporated into the laws, instead they have claimed that they have been deprived of a right.
Again, there is no right to legal recognition of any grouping of persons assembled for whatever purpose. This is no infringement upon any persons rights of association or their conjugal rights, their ability to “define and express their identity”. The process defined in law for changing law is available to all and no person or group has been denied the process for changing law.
To aid the advocates of the novel definition to obtain what they could not obtain legislatively, judges have imposed upon society this novel definition.
To protect against judicial novelties and to affirm the universal understanding of “marriage” citizens in several states have followed the legal procedures required in that State, procedures enacted by the elected legislature, to have placed before the voters a proposed amendment to the State Constitution. To have such a proposed amendment placed on the ballot is no small undertaking, typically requiring a large number of signatures collected in each district. The proposed amendment must then be adopted by the voters, typically with a requirement that 60% or more voters must approve for the amendment to be adopted.
There is nothing stopping advocates of this novel definition from doing likewise so that their novel definition is incorporated into the law.
Judges are not Legislators. The Supreme Court is not an unelected super-legislature whose edicts are absolute. They are not kings.
For judges to abuse the power of their office, to exercise that power beyond the extent of their authority, to impose upon society a novel definition so to mold society to their personal views is abject tyranny.
Opinions regarding the definition are immaterial, this is a question of rule of law and directly concerns every Person and State. The opinion of these judges can and must be ignored by States. States must protect their citizens and their administrators from this tyranny, by force if necessary. Lawlessness unchecked will grow and devour all.
The advocates of this novel definition are free to avail themselves of the process prescribed by law to change the laws to incorporate this novel description.
There is no right to violate the laws of nature and nature's God. Any laws that attempt it are null and void from the get-go.
This truth is the essence of "the rule of law and not of men." In other words, the foundation of of American republican self-government.