Unless you can point to the limitation language in the 1st about shall not prohibit the free expression thereof. And point to where the federal govt was given the authority to make a law respecting an establishment of religion - of which marriage always has been then do not play the law game. its clear the court is wrong here and shes standing up for clearly defined fundamental rights in the US Constitution.
As far as the law is concerned, marriage is a civil contract. You don’t actually think that a County clerk is a priest of some religion, do you? Or that the legislature is a synod of Bishops? They’re not. The state’s interest lies solely in the legalities of the civil relationship between the spouses.
The law is undeniable, which is why the SCOTUS ruled as it did: The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the States from denying the equal protection (or benefit) of the State’s laws to all residents of the State. The Amendment was clearly ratified in order to prevent the Southern States from granting privileges to one group that they denied to others, and from protecting one group but not protecting another. And that’s precisely what offering the legal benefits of marriage to one group but not to another does: It offers benefits to one group, but not to another, and gives legal protection to one group, but not to another.