It's his OPINION! The Majority had theirs and he has his! OPINIONS only! NOT law!
You should seriously consider taking some sort of Law 101 course; I'm sure there are plenty available online that are decent and don't cost much.
A court's (or a judge's) opinion in a case is not the same thing as a private person's opinion on various and sundry matters. A judicial opinion is a term of art; it is the expression of the reasoning behind the judge's decision in a particular state. To those so inclined, a judicial opinion can be parsed into the binding portions, called the ratio decidendi, and the nonbinding portions, called the obiter dicta. The ratio decidendi is that set of arguments necessary to justify the decision. The obiter dicta is everything else and, while not binding, is usually a good indicator of how the judge (or court) might rule in a future case.
To put it simply, when a judge acts in a case, she (a) makes a decision, and (b) if she thinks it necessary, will issue a written document explaining why she made the decision the way she did. That explanation is termed the judge's "opinion" but it is not the same thing as the "opinion" a private individual expresses when he says, for example, "I think same-sex marriage should be illegal." The first - the judge's opinion - has binding legal effect and there are consequences for ignoring or flouting it. The second has no binding legal effect and, at most, has only persuasive value depending on the strength of the arguments expressed.