But anyway, another day, and another state's right taken away. No big deal. Let's just sit back in awe as the federal government absorbs more power. Let's continue arguing about some silly flag while the TPP gets shoved down our throats just like the ACA did. But hey, at least the gays can get married now.
What state right are you seeking to preserve here, the right to define marriage in a way to exclude gay people? How is that different from 'preserving' a state's right to to exclude certain races from education (i.e. segregation)? The one thing that is constant in our history is that an individual's rights always trump the state's rights. That's why the south was forced to integrate, because the individual's right to equal education trumped the state's right to educate the different races in the way they preferred ("separate but equal"), which the court ruled was inherently unequal.
The point of the federal government here is to protect individual's rights where states refuse to. The "state's rights" argument holds no merit where states trample individual rights, and as long as state governments are going to grant marriages, declining marriages to gay couples is not just and is not defensible; not for religious reasons, not for state's rights reasons, not for any reasons.
That's what this case got right in my opinion.