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.
The Court is the ultimate arbiter of the Constitution. Who are you to say they are misinterpreting it?
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.
You haven't given any reasons. You are just leaning your argument on the whole "preference" line of baloney.
What distinction are you drawing between homosexuals and heterosexuals that allows one the right to a marriage contract, but not the other? Spell it out, please.