One difficulty I have with TFan's statements on Obergefell is that he's ending up in a different place than where he started. This is where he initially staked his ground:
Actually, the founders accepted the idea of judicial precedent as law. They all had as their framework the English "common law" system, in which judicial precedent was treated as law. The Constitution doesn't oppose this framework. In the historical context in which the Constitution was written, it was assumed that judicial precedent would be treated as law.
That's an appeal to the past. To the relevance of historical interpretation. To the pertinence of what the founders intended.
But in his latest statement he says:
Once again, there is a sort of academic argument to be made that the final determination of constitutionality should lie in the Executive or Legislative branches, but in practice that's not where the American system is today.
Today, even when the Supreme Court makes bad Constitutional decisions, its decisions stand as law until either they are overruled by subsequent Supreme Court decisions or the U.S. Constitution is amended. That's how the system is, whether or not that's how the system should be. I leave the should be question to the academics and the rich.
That appeal nullifies past understanding. What the founders had in mind is beside the point. That's just "academic." All that's germane is how things stand as of now.
From what I can discern, TFan switched arguments in midstream. Indeed, reversed his argument. His initial argument was based on the origins of the Republic in a common law tradition which English colonists inherited from the Mother country.
But according to his latest argument, that appeal is mooted by the current status quo. All that matters is how the system works at present, and not whether that's at odds with the intentions of the founders, as well as the states that ratified the Constitution.