Since the decision rests on the 14th Amendment, it's only about 150 years.
But yes, the right was there all along, but the implications weren't realized before now. It's generally been accepted for quite a while that the government can't discriminate on the basis of a person's sex, but for some reason the obvious implications for marriage haven't been accepted until now.
Sure, the people who wrote the 14th Amendment didn't intend it to say this. But that's because they had a great deal of implied context that didn't go into the law, like "women can't vote," which no longer applies. But if the context disappears and the law as written pretty clearly says X without that context, are we supposed to ignore that?
But yes, the right was there all along, but the implications weren't realized before now. It's generally been accepted for quite a while that the government can't discriminate on the basis of a person's sex, but for some reason the obvious implications for marriage haven't been accepted until now.
Sure, the people who wrote the 14th Amendment didn't intend it to say this. But that's because they had a great deal of implied context that didn't go into the law, like "women can't vote," which no longer applies. But if the context disappears and the law as written pretty clearly says X without that context, are we supposed to ignore that?