I find your use of the distinction a rationalization that (you believe) allows you to hold homosexuals to a different standard, guilt-free.
No, prior to the ruling all states were holding everyone to the same standard. It's just that that standard wasn't equally in line with everyone's preferences.
I think your real problem with this decision is that a few days ago, your preference was the law, and now it's not.
I could just as easily say that the reason you like this ruling is that it suits your policy preference, whereas it wasn't being suited two days ago. And I'd be backing it up with exactly as much evidence as you've provided.
The Court develops new legal concepts all the time. The Constitution, as written, doesn't come close to covering everything that needs covering without some pretty expansive interpretation.
There's such a thing as misinterpretation also. Concepts that the courts elaborate have to have a basis in the Constitution. This one does not.
We used to legally discriminate against blacks, and we used to legally discriminate against women. Looking back, the mistakes are obvious. Don't you see the same kind of mistake here?
No, for reasons I explained. Those earlier laws treated people differently. As I've pointed out, the Court struck down this law because it doesn't accomodate preferences equally. Non-constitutional and dangerous precedent.