Excellent! Then you should have no problem finding examples of the "right" to same-sex "marriage" being taken as a given throughout our history as a nation, as well as in our historical predecessor nation, Britain.
The freedom to go outside, to select dinner, and to chose your direction to walk etc. are also not in the constitution so what?
I didn't know the state was being asked to provide licensing for those things, along with government benefits for those activities. Not to mention that, as already stated, such actions have been the norm throughout our national and ancestral history. Not so, obviously, for same-sex "marriage".
Rights are not based upon their historical reality. Slavery for instance. You have a problem of very selective memory.
That's pretty funny coming from someone who apparently is unaware of the ratification of the 13th Amendment, banning slavery. You seem unaware that it A) took a constitutional amendment to ban slavery and B) that such an amendment was actually ratified. Not only that, but prior to ratification of the 13th Amendment, individual state laws determined whether slavery was permitted or not.
Unless and until a constitutional amendment to guarantee a right to same-sex "marriage" is ratified via the proper channels, there is no such right.
Abortion is the taking of an innocent life and not analogous to selecting whom you will marry.
The judicial misconduct in both cases is comparable.
Your last paragraph reveals an extreme paranoia. No one is forcing you to marry someone of your gender. You are in the dissonant position of describing rights as being enforced by jackbooted fascists. If it takes that to enforce rights, then so be it.
I rest my case. You aren't someone who supports freedom. You're someone who supports a cause, and you're perfectly willing to suppress dissent to achieve it. You don't have any respect for the rule of law or the rights of the people. You've developed an attachment to this deviant practice (though heaven only knows why) and you think self-government, popular sovereignty, the constitution, the traditions of the people, and even the freedoms of the people should be sacrificed so that this one deviancy can be elevated to a position it doesn't deserve.
Either the right to same-sex "marriage" is in the Constitution, in which case there should exist some ratification record for it, or it's a right so transcendent that the Founding Fathers never thought anyone would object to it and didn't feel it necessary to expound upon it (e.g, the right to walk out the front door of your house). If the latter is the case, then why is it that we've been able to walk out the front door of our house so easily for the entire history of our nation, while every jurisdiction limited marriage to people of the opposite sex?
I don't think you grasp what a dilemma you're in. Scylla on the one hand, Charibdes on the other.
The purpurse of the historical comment was to show that "historical reality", your term, is not a standard for continuing the violation of human rights.
You lost that point and as in other points you refuse to acknowledge the defeat. So I'm out again. Isn't that where we left off before?
You might want to ask yourself how an American could put themselves in such an untenable positions as to be so adamant in the restriction of the rights of other taxpaying Americans.