The real issue on the Supreme Court gay marriage ruling

On June 26, 2015 in the landmark case OBERGEFELL v. HODGES, gay marriage was legalized in the United States by the Supreme Court by five of its nine judges, with four dissenting.  As I read through the dissenting remarks I expected to see the four judges, Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito indicate all the reasons that gay marriage is harmful for America -- and society for that matter.  Instead I was surprised to see arguments inferring that the Supreme Court should not be in the business of conducting moral decisions regarding law, and that the choice had been taken from the voice of the people when that decision was made for the entire country.  Prior to that time, the case had gone to the 6th District Court of Appeals where it was ruled that it was not constitutional for a court to rule an issue that should be "in the hands of state voters."  So the bigger question is, should this decision have been made by an unelected court based on constitutional law where technically there was no provision for such?  

At that point, thirty six states had already legalized same-sex marriage, so couldn't the courts have stood back and allowed the other fourteen the time necessary to do it on their own?  As one quote from a dissenting judiciary stated, " The fundamental right to marry does not include a right to make a State change its definition of marriage. The people of a State are free to expand marriage to include same-sex couples, or to retain the historic definition. The majority’s decision is an act of will, not legal judgment."

It also stated the following on the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.  "This Court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us. Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be."  It went on to say that " It is instead about whether, in our democratic republic, that decision should rest with the people acting through their elected representatives, or with five lawyers who happen to hold commissions authorizing them to resolve legal disputes according to law. The Constitution leaves no doubt about the answer."  

As a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day-Saints, I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman.  Research shows that children thrive best when raised by their own biological parents," and I support all entities that support those means.  I am not a homophobe, and have friends and associates who are gay.  I believe in their fundamental rights but feel marriage is also fundamental to the raising of children and society should support laws that help children to be raised in the best way possible. 

If the Supreme Court stepped out of bounds in overruling an appeals court in this decision, where is the justice and faith in the system?  Dallin H. Oaks of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of our  church has stated in reference to officials ruling outside of their bounds, “Government officials must not apply these duties selectively according to their personal preferences — whatever their source,”

This is not to say the gay movement does not have the right to legislation that allows gay marriage.  It just needed to be done by the voice of the people as prescribed in the Constitution.

References -

OBERGEFELL ET AL. v. HODGES, DIRECTOR, OHIO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, ET AL. (n.d.). Retrieved January 22, 2019.

Oaks, Dallin H. (Oct. 20, 2015) The boundary between Church and State, Second Annual Sacramento Court/Clergy Conference: Sacramento, California.