We have the right to marry by the supreme court's decision

1. The law is composed of Rights (declarations of what you can legally do) and Restrictions (declarations of what you can’t legally do).
2. For any given action, you either legally can or can not do it, meaning that you either have a right to do the action, or there is a law disabling you from doing it, meaning there is a restriction.
3. There is to be no law restricting same-sex marriages from happening (as determined by the Supreme Court).
4. The law must determine whether or not you can have a same sex marriage (since it should be complete, recognizing the possibility of doing or not doing all desirable actions… desirable among all people)
5. Thus having a same-sex marriage would be an action to which you have a right, not an action from which you would be restricted.

 

For purposes of argument, and because you bring up the Supreme Court, I am going to reply operating under the assumption that you are talking about the legal recognition of marriages.

The law is not composed of rights. Rights are protected by the law, but not everything the law allows or provides for is necessarily a right.

Actions allowed in some states are not allowed in others, and this is not unconstitutional. It's a matter of jurisdiction. The federal government doesn't control everything, only the things reserved to it by the Constitution. The rest belongs to the states individually or the people. The Court has not ruled or held that states cannot ban recognition of same-sex marriages.

At no point did the Supreme Court say that all state laws banning recognition of same-sex marriage were overturned. You're dead wrong on this point.

Complete fabrication. The law doesn't have to determine whether every conceivable, desirable action is allowed or disallowed. All are allowed until the law says otherwise.

Not based on your defective line of reasoning, assuming that we're talking here about the legal recognition of marriages.

Now, all that said, let me be very, very clear: I agree that nothing in the law prevents a same-sex couple from having a ceremony to symbolize their commitment and calling that relationship 'marriage'. I do not agree that the Supreme Court has ruled that all such marriages must be legally recognized. I very much wish they had (as I have a personal stake in such an outcome), but they have not.