If a state has a population of 100 people, 75 of those people have a belief that marriage is this or that and life should be lived one way, they don't have a right to vote and force the remaining 25 to live according to what they believe. You(just the word I am using not you) do not have the right to tell someone what they can and cannot do with their life just because you do not feel they have legitimate rights(you can marry whoever you want they can marry whoever they want, those are equal rights). The federal government can step is when one group wants to restrict (based on religion, you can say it has nothing to do with it but lets not kid ourselves) individual liberty.

Religion is not used to cloud the subject it is the basis for why people are against it. A state forcing the religious beliefs of part the constituents on how life should be lived is not allowed. People are forcing a religious agenda on people they hide behind the fact that the constitution does not say; "Marriage is between two consenting adults, opposite sex or same sex."

The Constitution didn't explicitly say "Men and women are allowed to vote." people used that as an excuse to prohibit women from voting. When left up to the state for example New Jersey constitution stated only white male citizens over the age of 21 could vote. Were they stretching "Equal protection under that law" with the Nineteenth Amendment? Those darn activist judges want to give the same rights as everyone else.

The Constitution never said "No man, women or child can be slaves." If left to the States we would still have slavery. Anti abolitionist actually used the Bible as justification for slavery(kind of similar on how the Bible is used to hold "other" people down), just an example of how bigotry hides behind religion and then used to influence law. I can not believe those activists judges allowed the Thirteenth Amendment and the Fifteenth Amendment to boot.