Obergefell is fatally-flawed on about four different levels.
All it would take for standing is for a state to deny gays a marriage license based on their own writing of marriage laws; citing Windsor 2013. Then Windsor would be pitted against Obergefell and Obergefell would lose. Since Obergefell did not seek to overturn Windsor, and the two cases' opinions are diametrically opposed on the issue of states having the final say on marriage definition, the conflict would be referred to the US Constitution to resolve either for the state or for the gay couple (polygamists?) seeking marriage there. If the new USSC finds that there is no language that overturns Windsor's **56-assertions that marriage definition is exclusively up to the states, Obergefell is defunct and the state would win the case.
** Lifestyle-Marriage Equality Slugout: State Authority vs Federal?
Not sure on who would have standing to have Obergefell thrown out for violating Caperton vs A.T. Massey Coal 2009 (USSC) on the grounds that Ginsburg openly flaunted her bias to the press just weeks before the Hearing in 2015....where she was asked to, but refused to recuse herself...
Then there's the issue of who would have standing to challenge its conflicting Constitutionality citing the 14th Amendment as its justification where polygamy and other types of marriages derived from lifestyles "other than" one man/one woman still (arbitrarily and unfairly re: 14th Amendment) cannot marry. Think: polygamy & incest. If you cite a damage to children for their adults not being able to marry as the justification for Obergefell, you cannot arbitrarily choose which children will remain 'damaged' by their adults STILL NOT able to marry. Either all children must be "saved from the damage" or else marriage is approved based on some other rationale.
Obergefell is the swiss cheese of USSC decisions, so full of holes that Scalia simply couldn't take living in the same universe as that decision.
So take your pick. But there are some cases where there would be standing to challenge it. Another is, two adults cannot have a contract that also binds children involved (speaking of damaging children as rationale) away from a loving mother or father for life. Gay marriage uniquely does this where no other marriage does. Children had no representation unique to their own interests at Obergefell in the radical contract-revision hearing that sought to apply to all 50 States. Then, they were treated as legal chattel while the court hypocritically fawned poetic over their unique plight and interest in marriage. Also, children of gay couples who found the experience detrimental and wanted their amicus brief considered at Obergefell, were denied such input. Did you get that? Young adults who just came through the experimental marriages had negative things to say about being denied a father or mother and the USSC under the liberal majority DENIED their input wholesale.
So, Alabama, North Dakota, Arkansas, Maine, Utah, Kansas, Oklahoma etc. deny gay people a marriage license if that's what your state said doesn't qualify. Do it for the kids. Otherwise, your state may be enabling child abuse by sanctioning and rewarding contracts that harm them for life.
Why should big government care who gets married in the first place?
Or do you think government should be in our bedrooms fixated with what we do with our holes and sticks?
Government makes rules for our society that we live by. I don't particularly care that we have so many single parent families, but the fact is, is that, thru welfare, government created these situations.
The government, thru official mandate, has made it easier to divorce, easier to be unwed and have children, and easier for society to erode the concept of "family".
Gay marriage is simply another nail in society's coffin.
Mark
So government should decide who can and can't get married? What else do you want big government to do? Geesh.
When government in essence pays people to divorce, aren't they in fact doing what you claim you don't want them to do?
Mark