Instead, Kennedy fashioned the opinion around another part of the 14th Amendment, holding that denial of marriage licenses infringed on the liberty of gay men and women by restricting their right to due process. As Justice Clarence Thomas correctly pointed out, liberty under the Constitution has largely been defined as protection against physical restraints or broader government interference ”” “not as a right to a particular governmental entitlement.” While Kennedy makes a powerful case for an expansive new view of due process, he extends the concept of liberty far beyond prior decisions.
In reality, he has been building to this moment for years, culminating in what might now be called a right to dignity. In his 1992 Casey decision, he upheld Roe v. Wade on the basis of “personal dignity and autonomy [that] are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.” Kennedy wove this concept of protected dignity through a series of cases, from gay rights to prison lawsuits, including his historic 2003 Lawrence decision striking down the criminalization of homosexuality. These rulings on liberty peaked with Obergefell, which he described as an effort of the petitioners to secure “equal dignity in the eyes of the law.” He used the word “dignity” almost a dozen times in his decision and laid down a jurisprudential haymaker: “The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity.”
When I listened to the oral arguments, it was clear that advocates on all sides understood the key to the case was Kennedy and his view of “dignity.” Mary Bonauto’s second sentence of her argument was:
[blockquote]If a legal commitment, responsibility and protection that is marriage is off limits to gay people as a class, the stain of unworthiness that follows on individuals and families contravenes the basic constitutional commitment to equal dignity. [/blockquote]
Similarly, the Solicitor General’s opening sentence was short and simple: “The opportunity to marry is integral to human dignity.”
Compare this with an argument made by John Bursch, on behalf of Michigan (and marriage) – note Justice Kennedy’s repulsion at his argument:
[blockquote] MR. BURSCH And, you know, I want to get back to this point of line drawing, and the marriage definition that the Plaintiffs and the Federal government proposed. You know, and how, no matter where you draw the lines, they’re going to leave someone out, too. And what they are asking you to do is to take an institution, which was never intended to be dignitary bestowing, and make it dignitary bestowing. [sic] That’s their whole argument. And when you do that, tens of thousands of other children who don’t meet their definition will likewise be left out and suffer those exact same dignitary harms.
 When you’re talking about a spectrum of marriage definitions, different places to draw the line, and potential harms on both sides, that is the quintessential place for the democratic process to work. And there’s another harm ÂÂ
JUSTICE KENNEDY: Just in Â just in fairness to you, I don’t understand this not dignity bestowing. I thought that was the whole purpose of marriage. It bestows dignity on both man and woman in a traditional marriage.
MR. BURSCH: It’s supposed to ÂÂ
JUSTICE KENNEDY: It’s dignity bestowing, and these parties say they want to have that Â that same ennoblement.
MR. BURSCH: Sure.
JUSTICE KENNEDY: Or am I missing your point?
MR. BURSCH: I think you’re missing my point. If we go back to that world where marriage doesn’t exist and the State is trying to figure out how do we link together these kids with their biological moms and dads when possible, the Â the glue are benefits and burdens, but not necessarily dignity.  You know, dignity may have grown up around marriage as a cultural thing, but the State has no interest in bestowing or taking away dignity from anyone, and certainly it’s not the State’s intent to take dignity away from sameÂsex couples or Â or from anyone based on their sexual orientation.
JUSTICE KENNEDY: Well, I think many States would be surprised, with reference to traditional marriages, they are not enhancing the dignity of both the parties. I’m puzzled by that. [/blockquote]
Here is a link to the transcript of the oral argument:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/14-556q1_7l48.pdf
So same-sex people are entitled to dignity, but Christians are not entitled to the dignity of declining to participate in a ceremony that violates their religion.
Jim, that about sums it up. And, of course, any number of people need the same dignity.