It's activism if you are distorting the meaning and intent of the amendment to reach a desired end by illegitimate means, by intellectually dishonest means.

The Supreme Court did something similar regarding the understanding of the amendment intended to define slaves as full citizens of the US. They stretched that so that anyone born inside the US now is automatically a citizen, even today, so the US is practically unable to control its citizenship that unlike (IIRC) pretty much every other country. Congress's intent was clear, but that didn't stop them.

So are you in for child brides too? There are people in the US that want that. Actually we'll probably end up fighting that battle in 50 years or less.

Speaking of bull .....

You should try rereading it, perhaps slower. Maybe then you will catch the rebuke he is giving to other members of the court.

The phase you are looking for is Liberty, which had a constraints to it. The US is heading further along the road of license, something abhorred by the Founders. You should really look into the distinction.

The problem is a lack of serious commentary about the right, not a lack of serious contenders. Pretty much any of the many governors running would be a better overall choice than either Clinton or Sanders. Some of them would be far better.

Might I suggest the same to you? The Federal government hasn't exactly always been a shining light itself. How many states waged Indian Wars? Any thoughts about the existence of black regiments in the Army? There may be a few more examples....

I'm pretty sure that 10-20 people doesn't constitute a meaningful portion of the religious experience of the US. And not all government officials are all sweetness and light in their treatment of members of America's religious communities.

There isn't much Christian in "Christian" Identity.

I think you've just demonstrated the wisdom in this quote:

I'd rather entrust the government of the United States to the first 400 people listed in the Boston telephone directory than to the faculty of Harvard University. - William F. Buckley, Jr.

Actually the court is telling all 50 states what to do. The states laws generally defined marriage as between a man and a woman. To the extent that there were actual bans it was in essence a clarification of policy or defensive measures. That is pretty simple to understand. But in this case the court is telling the states that they have to expand the definition to include other possibilities than just a man and woman.

Slavery was ended by amending the US Constitution. That was done by votes, not decree. Jim Crow and the associated nonsense was ended by a combination of laws passed by Congress (with Republican support against the Democrats running the segregated South), court decisions, and executive actions such as the use of the Army to enforce court orders or policy by Presidents Eisenhower and Kennedy.

I believe that is already happening at the Federal level. I seem to recall reading that the policy for the military is you have to be married if you want benefits for the "significant other" if you are from a state that allows it. I doubt all of the activists will be pleased.

Power of Attorney.

States regularly treat citizens differently based on a host of factors. The real question is what are the acceptable grounds and degrees for that treatment. In some areas there is wider latitude than others.

Perhaps the failure here isn't Scalia's, but others in the court, and yours? This decisions over the last two days may someday be regarded a the "Dred Scott" decisions of this era.

Have you ever considered taking in a wider range of views?

Would you be so dishonest as to deny the Judeo-Christian worldview and values of the Founders? Given the anti-Christian bigotry you so often spew I'm going to say more than likely yes.

I'm pretty sure the Founding Fathers wouldn't have found an inalienable right to buggery in the Constitution, but it seems agreeable to you. "Gay marriage" would have been anathema. But again that is no obstacle for you to freely invent and overlook as desired.

By the way, did you notice how slavery was removed as an institution from the United States? I seem to recall there was a vote or two. The same thing with the banning and reinstatement of alcohol. Inconvenient facts here, just move along and don't look.

There has existed since before the founding of the American Republic a modern legal classification of married which conveys upon you certain rights and privileges. What SCOTUS has done is overthrow that.

In truth this has little to do with the 14th Amendment, that is just a convenient vehicle for the goal of creating a new institution of "gay marriage." Gay people had exactly the same rights as everyone else before that, but they wanted something different. Now they have it, and more battles will come of it. Gay marriage has hardly existed and now gay divorce is the trend. Let the celebrations begin! Gay divorce is here in all 50 states! Equality at last!

You take exception to religion, which is often the source of defects in your reasoning.

The same society that you complain about is the same society that just made this decision, and in a number of cases it was made by politicians. I can understand why you would question it. It is a questionable outcome.