It was Professor Charles Rice of Notre Dame Law School who asked the simple question, "Where do you get your rights?". Our right to free speech for instance is not granted by the 1st Amendment of the Constitution. Our right to free speech and other rights come from God, not man. When the Declaration of Independence says that ...''We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", it is clearly referencing that man equally created by God derives his 'rights' as a human creature in the universe justified against God and God's law, he does not derive his rights from the government because if so, then he should fully anticipate the day when the government will take those 'rights' back.
This materialist abrogation of metaphysical realities has lead us into concretized two dimensional linear interpretation of all law. "The letter of the law without the Spirit of the law is dead", however. The courts have continuously found the state to be in violation of the constitution when it has been a matter of legal restrictions, they have yet as the Church has so powerfully illustrated when it came to the ordination of women, defined the boundaries of the constitution in what 'rights' it can bestow on it's citizens. The constitution does not give the government the right to rubber stamp any decree that a group of people even the congress is in favor of issuing. The State, like a modern day Roman emperor cannot simply declare that two plus two equal five or water is no longer wet, water is wet for everyone. Homosexuality has provided it's own evidence of cognitive and emotional impairment particularly in the illogical and psychotic social climbing demand to recognize a 'marriage' between two people of the same sex. The courts therefore who are in favor of such a union are in violation of natural law and logic to even mention that it is within their authority to recognize the concept of same sex unions, people of the same sex are not maritable any more than marriage between man and a non-human or marriage between man and one under the age of consent are maritable. Marriage is predicated on a complimentary union of archetypal polar opposites. This admits the potential for procreation which is not to be dismissed as an unneccessary element of a marriage. There is no union to which the state or any man can be said to have the luxury of investing as we do as a society recognizing a marriage, where that union is unproductive and unconducive. When a thing 'works' then that person is 'right', when a thing does not 'work', that person has been proven false, you have to have demonstrative production to legitimize any endeavor or union.
Lastly, let us stop making a comparison between African-Americans and homosexuals. Particularly, if one is not black, let's not tokenize their great civil right struggles for our own causes. The analogy here is one of sexuality not race or ethnicity. There is no analogy between the restrictions of interracial marriage (which, yes, as a person of mixed descent myself will tell you is founded on a legitimate argument of nature and God's law, believe it or not) and homosexuality. The concerns of miscegenation however play no role in the debates over gay 'marriage'.