From the activist judges on the SCOTUS, two who should have recused themselves and one who actually contracted two homosexuals weeks ago then now anything is a Constitutional right, Polygamy, etc
And 3 who should have demanded it.
I think the best of the dissents was written by Thomas:
Instead, the States have refused to grant them governmental entitlements. Petitioners claim that as a matter of liberty, they are entitled to access privileges and benefits that exist solely because of the government. They want, for example, to receive the States imprimatur on their marriageson state issued marriage licenses, death certificates, or other official forms. And they want to receive various monetary benefits, including reduced inheritance taxes upon the death of a spouse, compensation if a spouse dies as a result of a work-related injury, or loss of consortium damages in tort suits. But receiving governmental recognition and benefits has nothing to do with any understanding of liberty that the Framers would have recognized.
To the extent that the Framers would have recognized a natural right to marriage that fell within the broader definition of liberty, it would not have included a right to governmental recognition and benefits. Instead, it would have included a right to engage in the very same activities that petitioners have been left free to engage inmaking vows, holding religious ceremonies celebrating those vows, raising children, and otherwise enjoying the society of ones spousewithout governmental interference. At the founding, such conduct was understood to predate government, not to flow from it...
...In a concession to petitioners misconception of liberty, the majority characterizes petitioners suit as a quest to find...liberty by marrying someone of the same sex and having their marriages deemed lawful on the same terms and conditions as marriages between persons of the opposite sex. Ante, at 2. But liberty is not lost, nor can it be found in the way petitioners seek. As a philosophical matter, liberty is only freedom from governmental action, not an entitlement to governmental benefits. And as a constitutional matter, it is likely even narrower than that, encompassing only freedom from physical restraint and imprisonment. The majoritys better informed understanding of how constitutional imperatives define...liberty, ante, at 19,better informed, we must assume, than that of the people who ratified the Fourteenth Amendmentruns headlong into the reality that our Constitution is a collection of Thou shalt nots, Reid v. Covert, 354 U. S. 1, 9 (1957) (plurality opinion), not Thou shalt provides.
When young children can chose their gender and which restroom they want to use from day to day, it’s only a matter of time before they can consent to sex with adults. But these don’t scare me as much as the “positive” rights that are coming down the pike. Like the right to have a child sex partner of your choosing. The right of the state to choose the sexuality of your child, etc.