I do not believe the courts rule on moral issues, only legal ones. Is there a legal code for all? Yes, the constitution has served us well for a couple of centuries now and, at least in my opinion, continues to do so. I think of it as the giant 'rule book' on what is permissible, what is not and what the state (in this case, 'the state' being the entire gov't on all levels, collectively) has no ability to pronounce judgement over.
Going forward with this thought, the case in question was a challenge based on the fourteenth amendment, which among other things, guarantees 'equal protection under the law' (partial quote: "....,nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."). So if 'the state' (the entire gov't or any part) provides a protection (any general benefit or consequence) to anyone or any group, then it must provide those same protections to all persons or groups. In the end, there just is no way around that that I can see and this case really could not have gone any other way given that amendment.
Of course any person or group can oppose this, not like it, hate it outright, protest against it and so forth. We still have freedom of speech and thought (though 'political correctness' is masking that fact). What this ruling does is apply 'the rules of the game' (the Constitution of the US) to individuals and a group (same- sex people wanting the benefits and recognition of marriage) that others (opposite- sex married couples) have been recognized by the same 'rulebook'.
So as always, these discussions just about instantly become about what some like, what some do not like, what is good, what is bad and so forth but in the end (no pun intended given the material being discussed..... and a gigantic Easy Boys!) it is really a pretty simple legal question about whether or not one group can be excluded from rights clearly given to other groups. For me, this generates no emotion at all nor does it effect my thoughts and opinions, it merely answers the relatively simple legal questions 1) do we have a law for this? Yep, fourteenth amendment to the Constitution. Is it being applied correctly, and if not, what would be the remedy? I believe the highest court has answered both of those questions in the only way that it could given the circumstances.
And, at no extra cost, we all get to read the brilliant and scathing dissenting opinion of Antonin Scalia on this ruling- always a pleasure to get a peek into such a brilliant mind (whether he is right or wrong, he is ALWAYS eloquent and superb in writing or speaking IMO).
Brian
<snip>
The question leads to broader questions lying at the heart of all this.
What is moral, and who defines it?
Is there an absolute moral code or not?
Does one's answers to those questions hold true universally or selectively?