This makes no sense whatsoever, even you must see that.The Supreme Court was not making policy. They were upholding the wording of the Constitution which says marriage is between two people.
In written language words and phrases are taken to have meanings.
Thou shalt not steal.
If this was made into a law oit is not simply the words and letters that law but the whole meaning of the sentence. Stealing is not simple, some would call taxes stealing but say in this culture they weren't then the meaning does not refer to taxes. A judge could change it in two ways leading to the undermining of the ruleof law.
Firslty he could change the wording to:
Thou shalt not steal anything about $10s in worth.
Or he could simply reinterpret it to mean that, which is what happened in Iowa. There is little difference, one is just more sneeky. So he sums up by saying:
Yes, this guy did steal something but it was only worth $5 and the law really shouldn't be concerned with that sort of thing.
Now do you finally understand?
You can of course think this is fine and dandy, judges should be able to make laws etc but you can't deny that is what they are doing.