Finally, however, since argument for changing the definition of marriage wasn’t grounded in the text and history of the Constitution but rather in Justice Kennedy’s (and gay rights activists’ — but I’m being redundant) morally subjective notions of “dignity,” it would be odd indeed if one moral point of view could be fully aired and adopted by the highest authorities in the land while a contrary moral point of view — whether grounded in citizens’ religious beliefs, natural law, or comparable moral code — would be deemed to violate the Establishment Clause. There are many liberal Christians who enthusiastically cheered Kennedy and found his reasoning entirely consistent with their progressive religious orthodoxies. 

When moral arguments matter — in law or in culture — both sides may make them with equal force. Moreover, you will find religious people on all sides of a debate. Simply because my views are orthodox — consistent with 2,000 years of church tradition — while the Episcopal Church’s views are consistent only with the last dozen or so years of progressive intellectual fashion does not mean that biblical religious truth implicates the Establishment Clause while progressive religious beliefs do not. Religious people have been advocating policy changes for religious reasons since the founding of our nation. Did John Kasich violate the Establishment Clause when he expanded Medicaid? Do gun control efforts impermissibly combine church and state? The question isn’t whether faith motivated the voter or politician but rather whether the law violates specific, legally-protected rights. Any other formulation leads to absurd results.