If marriage is indeed a fundamental right, and the Supreme Court says it is, then why is it licensed? A license is permission from the state to do something. The idea of a right, especially a fundamental one, is that you have a right to do something no matter what. In other words, you don't need the permission of the state to exercise a fundamental right. Thus, the notion that a fundamental right should be licensed can only be a contradiction in terms.
But, perhaps, I am wrong and a fundamental right is not the right to do something no matter what. Okay, then if that's the wrong definition of a fundamental right, then what is the proper one?
And how can a right be fundamental if it must first be licensed by the state for it to be exercised? Something that is fundamental is something that is foundational, something that is built upon. Therefore, a right, if it is fundamental, must be prior to the state, but the Supreme Court has ruled that the fundamental right to marriage consists in the right to a marriage license. How the deuce can there be a fundamental right to something that can only exist AFTER and not BEFORE the existence of the State? Or is my understanding of "fundamental" wrong as well?
Apparently, "marriage" was not the only word the Supreme Court re-defined beyond all recognition.