As usual, you are confused about what a law is- and what the Supreme Court does.
The Supreme Court ruled, for the fourth time, that State marriage laws were unconstitutional.
No 'new law' was implemented- only unconstitutional laws overturned- something the Supreme Court does and is supposed to do.
1. The Obergefell Hearing was about a proposed revision to what each state defined as their marriage contract terms. States defined their marriage contract terms to benefit children states know are implicit expected parties to the marriage contract. Though minors, their share is the most important of all of the marriage contract.
2. Obergefell was Heard without children having any representation as to their unique enjoyments to that contract. Which is illegal. Ergo, Obergefell was a mistrial.
3. Therefore, the Court hasn't ruled on anything. Any state can feel completely free to disobey Obergefell under the justification that it hurts children's contractual rights to marriage (a mother and father). In fact, if states don't disobey Obergefell, they are essentially in conspiracy to abet child abuse.
For more information: Is Gay Marriage Void? New York v Ferber (1982) Etc.
1. The Obergefell Hearing was about a proposed revision to what each state defined as their marriage contract terms- NO
2. Obergefell was Heard without children having any representation as to their unique enjoyments to that contract. Which is illegal. No- frankly delusional
3. Therefore, the Court hasn't ruled on anything. Again- frankly delusional- as evidenced by same gender couples marrying in all 50 states now