First, Barone is simply factually incorrect about all of Doma being overruled/ stricken as unconst. Only the part about federal benefits in section 3 was stricken. Section 2, that allows states to not have to recognize gay marriages from other states is still valid. SCOTUS doesn't exist to give "victories to the right or left" but to follow the law as the lawgivers understood they were enacting. SCOTUS could have ruled bans on same-sex marriage in the states was unconstitutional, and expressly did not, nor could they, even though scotus had 2 major opportunities to do so. The people are justified in accepting this as a tacit admission that the bans are constitutional, as the scotus had previously ruled in 1972. The framers of the equal protection clause, in 1868 had no idea they were changing the definition of marriage from one man, one woman. The only effect on marriage that the epc could have is to strike bans on interracial marriage, as racism was the main malady that was being attacked by the epc, having come on the tail of the civil war. It also, by its language, prohibits sexism. Those are the main bans of the epc, and that presumably persons similarly situated be treated simlarly. The Framers' understanding controls, and it can not be said that state laws banning same-sex marriage are inconsistent with this understanding, considering that one man,one woman has been the definition since the beginning of marriage eons ago. Just like you would not stand for a judge interpreting and applying a will without regard to the intent of the testator, so it is with the const. The Ninth amendment only eans that people's rights under their state const were not to be affected by ratification of the federal Bill of rights. The ninth is not a mechanism to have courts find rights that aren't indicated by the const elsewhere. The same goes for "subtantive due process", another oxymoron. due process is indicative of procedural guarantees in the legal system, not substantive rights that can only be denied thorugh fair procedures (due process). The worst part was the decision that only the governor or attorney general has standing to defend a democratically-enacted ballot measure. This was a ridiculous attack on the democratic process. Better have all ballot measures include language that certain officers MUST defend the law or appoint someone to do so. This ruling will just create more judicial mischief.