My belief is that government's should be restricted by the constitution to make enabling legislation. Period.
But the other side of the coin demands intervention, society today will simply not allow a relationship of any kind between a child and an adult, let alone marriage. If we have social welfare programs, we need guard against abuse, such as fraud in welfare and old age security.
So, some, is necessary; in the US at least there appears to be too much and a lot of it on moral grounds. That for me is where all government's should be banned from treading; morals cannot and will not be legislated; too many politicians have far too much booze in their bellies when they vote for me to be comfortable with any morality based law.
"Small people talk about people, average people talk about events, great people talk about ideas" Eleanor Roosevelt
I do not admire the SCOTUS for running away from this.
But if it makes same sex marriages easier to come by...good.
'What kind of sick and twisted toy factory is this?'
'We are all the sum of our tears. Too little and the ground is not fertile, and nothing can grow there. Too much, the best of us is washed away.'
"Better to be dead and cool, than alive and uncool."
Now you are moving a goal post from "lack of a Federal question" (which was the basis of Baker in 1972) to saying "changed in the Constitution".
If you go and read the Circuit Court rulings in the matter of these cases (the 10th, 7th, and 4th's) and the District Court rulings you will not that most (I say most but I really think it's all) specifically addressed the applicability of Baker and note that given the change in the legal landscape (because multiple states recognize SSCM, because the Federal government took action in DOMA, and because the Federal government now recognizes legal SSCM's) that the conditions from the time of Baker don't apply.
You may disagree of course. The facts are that (a) the courts recognize the change in the legal landscape, and (b) the SCOTUS just basically signed off on that by rejecting the appeals which means they become the final ruling in those jurisdictions.
And under court law when it comes to the rules of summary dispositions, "Subsequent developments by the Court on the relevant doctrines may cast doubt on the continuing validity of a summary judgment."
I think that the repeal of sodomy laws and the recognition of same sex marriage on the state and federal level constitute "subsequent developments". What do you think?