Speaking of gay marriage, the correct way to argue United States v. Windsor and similar cases would have been to deny that gays are capable of forming “committed or intimate relationships.”
For there is in gay “relationships” nothing but lust; but there are no laws against gay fornication or sodomy or promiscuity. Gays were satisfied before. They could not have anything else they might have wanted not according to man-made law but simply as a natural fact.
Their aim was not to uplift gay relations, because that was impossible; there is no leveling up; it was to do something much easier, namely to level down: to undermine and debase straight marriage, indeed to destroy the traditional family.
It might seem that this argument proves that a childless and loveless heterosexual marriage would also be prohibited. People could not then marry for “convenience” or money. But those things are at least possible in a traditional marriage, and it is indeed not for the state to judge such personal matters as love.
Those things are manifestly impossible for gay marriages which means there is reason for the state not to recognize them as valid.