Snared in a metaphorical de-pantsing, the rapidly dissembling Hayworth put it down to "a disagreement," claiming he'd actually "went back and reviewed" the decision.
But insofar as the court purported to "define" marriage at all, what it did say was this:
Marriage ... bestows enormous private and social advantages on those who choose to marry. Civil marriage is at once a deeply personal commitment to another human being and a highly public celebration of the ideals of mutuality, companionship, intimacy, fidelity, and family.Emphases added. The language on both accounts appears to preclude all manner of hooved ungulate from participating in the ceremony under consideration (although they might well be invited guests).
You can have a disagreement about what the law means, but not about what the words read. And in this case, it doesn't say what Hayworth says it does. He's just lying. For the horses, apparently.