How can we 'argue' something if you don't even understand the very basic constitutional analysis and principles?! Seriously, it's cute that a subject of the queen is trying to get into this though. I'll try to help you out.
First, even if we broadly construe the right at issue as 'the right to marriage', the state can theoretically still have the ability to discriminate within that right. Of course this is a very tough standard to meet. Second, some conservative Justice (cough, Scalia, cough) will just say that the right here is "the right to marry someone of the same gender" and not simply "the right to marry." It's all in how you define the right at issue.
Look, I agree with you about same sex marriage, but your constitutional analysis is pretty freaking poor and stupid.
Oh i get it just fine, the USSC has ruled that marriage is a right, that means that per the constitution itself it IS a right since their job is to interpret the constitution.
And no, you may not know this but NO state can legally construct legislation that goes against the federal constitution.
We haven't even begun discussing what happens after the repeal of state law... you really don't have a fucking clue about the US legal system, do you?
I do and i have presented knowledge to you, take it in, realise that it is fact, cement it and rid yourself of your delusions.
Ah well, i've tried to help you, i've got better things to do than to educate Americans on their constitution (which is just a god damn piece of paper) and legal system...
Good luck though, when you reach high school i'm sure you can even have an argument without baiting or trolling, not that it will make sense since you refuse to learn from the information handed to you but still, you could nod and perhaps get away with that withouth shouting "QEEEN" like you had writing tourettes.
I'm going to hold my thumbs for you, you can doit, i'm sure of it!