The entirety of this post is an ad hom with no substance and a lot of unsupported assertions and falsehoods. I don't see the point in taking it seriously, to be honest.
Au contraire, the
court opinion states that
"By history and tradition the definition and regulation of marriage has been treated as being within the authority and realm of the separate States".
and describes marriage as being wanted so that people could "
affirm their commitment to one another". It summarises gay marriage, when permitted by NYC, as:
"For same-sex couples who wished to be married, the State acted to give their lawful conduct a lawful status. This status is a far-reaching legal acknowledgment of the intimate relationship between two people, a relationship deemed by the State worthy of dignity in the community equal with all other marriages. It reflects both the community’s considered perspective on the historical roots of the institution of marriage and its evolving understanding of the meaning of equality"
In fact, Alito agrees with me. He references both views of marriage - the 'traditional' view which you are insisting is the only one, and the 'consent-based' view, which is gender-unbiased. He then goes on to say that
"Windsor and the United States implicitly ask us to endorse the consent-based view of marriage and to reject the traditional view" - in other words, he thinks that the Majority opinion is an implicit endorsement of a view of marriage which you refuse to admit exists, except for as a homosexual ploy.