Same Sex marriage was always a right and a reality, long before the courts took up the case... What was at issue was government recognition of the union... It was about the legal institution of marriage, not the right to call yourself married, everybody had that already. You could go out and hire a hall, get a minister, send out invitations and have a wedding and nobody would stop you, nor would anybody stop you from believing your relationship was a marriage. Before the ruling, nobody's rights where infringed.
So what right was being abridged if the government didn't legally recognize what you considered a marriage? I haven't the faintest idea, but we now have invented *some* right to have your same sex union recognized by the government. Where is *THAT* in the list of things the government *must* or *should* do?
So, be precise here. If you want to claim to be married to your horse, government isn't going to stop you, you have the right to that belief. So is there now a case to create a right for this union to be recognized by the government? How about three people getting married? Four? I don't think anybody has a right to have the government legally recognize their specific definition of marriage is valid, yet that's what we have created now.
And one more thing on this specific subject. There was already a legal avenue for such relationships to have the legal status the proponents of same sex marriage claimed they lacked. It was called "Domestic Partnerships"/"Civil Unions". It afforded all the civil law protections of marriage. But even though there was really NOTHING being withheld, we went out and the courts created this new enumerated right anyway.
I personally think that the proponents of this where really after something totally different and that this really amounts to the establishment of a religious belief that takes precedence over another backed by the federal government and is such a violation of the 1st amendment establishment clause. However, I would guess you find that a stretch...