But it remains that, regardless of pro-gay interpretations of the Equal Protections Clause of the 14th Amendment (14A) by institutionally indoctrinated judges, the states have never amended the Constitution to expressly protect so-called gay rights. And both the Supreme Court and John Bingham, the main author of Section 1 of 14A, had officially clarified that 14A applies only constitutionally enumerated protections to the states.
“3. The right of suffrage was not necessarily one of the privileges or immunities of citizenship before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, and that amendment does not add to these privileges and immunities. It simply furnishes additional guaranty for the protection of such as the citizen already had [emphasis added].” —Minor v. Happersett, 1874.
“Mr. Speaker, this House may safely follow the example of the makers of the Constitution and the builders of the Republic, by passing laws for enforcing all the privileges and immunities of the United States as guaranteed by the amended Constitution and expressly enumerated in the Constitution [emphasis added].” — Congressional Globe, House of Representatives, 42nd Congress, 1st Session. (See lower half of third column.)
So it would take an amendment to the Constitution to protect gay "rights" like gay marriage.
Unfortunately, both of those quotes refer to the “privileges and immunities” clause, not the “equal protection” clause. So, they don’t necessarily constrain judges from ruling for same-sex marriage on “equal protection” grounds.
Not that it matters - a judge who wants to rule in favor of same-sex marriage will find a way to do it, regardless of the history and Constitutional language.