With deep and sincere respect, President Harrison, I believe you are mistaken in the claim that SCOTUS got it wrong. I pray desperately that you are mistaken in the rest of your post, but fear you are correct on those points.

SCOTUS was required - by law - to rule as they did. There was no other option open for the secular authority to take and not be in violation of the First Amendment to the US Constitution, which reads:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

This ruling has no bearing on what the Church may or may not preach, nor how it may exercise its beliefs. The ruling specifically declares unConstitutional the States' definition of (secular) marriage, and requires the States to recognize marriages legally performed in any State of the Union. As the Sixth Circuit Court, and Justices in the dissenting opinions note, however, this would have been far better resolved legislatively than judicially. Unfortunately, the nature of plaintiffs' grievances against the State were of a nature that could not wait for legislation to resolve, and so they - appropriately under the First Amendment - petitioned the Government for a redress of grievances.

If we truly "affirm the human rights of all individuals and the inherent and equal value of all people. We respect the divinely given dignity of all people, no matter their sexual preference.", how can we say this ruling was unjust? In the eyes of the law of many states, our homosexual brothers and sisters were being treated as being of lesser value, and without the same dignity afforded their heterosexual peers.

The First Amendment is truly a double-edged sword - it guarantees our freedom to worship the living triune God, but at the same time requires that no law be passed that elevates one religion over another, or all religions over the unsaved (although they use a different term for the last). We cannot then realistically expect that we will be able to codify our beliefs into the annals of national law - doing so would open the floodgates and allow every religion to codify its beliefs into the annals of national law. The protection of the Church from the State includes a reversed view - the protection of the State from the Church.

I have made the post I wrote on Facebook about this ruling public here:
https://www.facebook.com/steven.c.t.cook/posts/10200818640824585
If you have the time, I would very much like to hear your thoughts and guidance on this post.

Thank you for your time and your service to us and to our Lord.