I'd like to thank Dglenn for bringing this to my attention:
"[...] as an Orthodox rabbi who does not officiate at same-sex marriages [...] My 'side' did not lose, because my side is never defined by any one position on a matter of ritual or liturgy, no matter how important that matter may be. My side, I hope, is God's side, and the God in whom I believe is infinite -- bigger and more complex than can be reduced to any single decision, or even any single tradition, for that matter." -- Rabbi Brad Hirschfield, I am an orthodox rabbi who doesn't perform gay marriages, but I celebrate today's Supreme Court decision, 2015-06-26.
I am heterosexual and religious. The Supreme Court decision to recognize a secular, legal status does not in any way harm my religious rights, nor anybody else's. Why should my gay friends be barred from the legal and financial protections, and obligations, that I and my husband have? (I do wish they'd declared "civil unions for everyone" and taken the term "marriage" completely out of the law, but I presume they can't do that on their own.)
No clergy with objections to gay marriage need officiate. That's proper; most rabbis won't perform marriages between Jews and non-Jews, Catholic priests won't remarry those who are divorced, and I presume there are other examples. The courts continue to uphold your religious rights.
Except for that one some claim of imposing their religious mores on others. That one took a little damage Friday.
Added in a comment:
In the space of "defense of marriage" (sic), churches should be no more concerned with secular gay marriages than they are with secular atheist heterosexual marriages. Religiously speaking they don't recognize either. So what? That shouldn't be new. If they weren't threatened by one class of not-church-recognized marriage, they shouldn't be threatened by another.
Of course, if their goal is something else, like to force their views of what is or isn't proper behavior on a secular nation, then that wouldn't mollify them at all...