In fact, the congressional record shows that John Bingham, the main author of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, had clarified that the 14th Amendment applies only those rights expressly amended to the Constitution by the states to the states.
“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].” —John Bingham, Congressional Globe, House of Representatives, 42nd Congress, 1st Session. (See lower half of third column.)
And more importantly, although the 14th Amendment has problems imo, the states effectively overturned the Court’s decision in Dred Scott v. Sanford within the framework of the Constitution by ratifying the 13th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution.
But as previously mentioned, it remains that the states have never amended the Constitution to expressly protect gay “marriage.” Activist justices wrongly established the so-called right to gay “marriage” outside the framework of the Constitution. They did so by breaching the Founding States' division of federal and state government powers, stealing 10th Amendment-protected state power to prohibit constitutionally unprotected gay “marriage” to legalize the so-called right to gay “marriage” from the bench.
And what’s arguably worse then the Court’s PC decision in Obergefell is that regardless that the Founding States gave Congress the specific power to remove Constitution-ignoring justices from the bench, the post-17th Amendment ratification has refused to work with the House to impeach and remove activist justices from the bench against the will of many states.
The ill-conceived 17th Amendment needs to disappear, and corrupt senators and the activist justices that they confirm and then refuse to remove from the bench as well.
But there are the similarities of reaction with Dred, such as "Democrats characterized Republicans as lawless rebels, provoking disunion by their unwillingness to accept the Supreme Court's decision as the law of the land."
And the cry of Douglas that "I yield obedience to the decisions in that court—to the final determination of the highest judicial tribunal known to our constitution."
And the presumption that Dred would result in states having "no power to prohibit slavery within their borders and that state laws providing for the emancipation of slaves brought into their territory or forbidding the institution of slavery were likewise unconstitutional."
And the argument for the the Dred Scott decision as being "essential to the preservation of the union," rejoicing that The "nation" has achieved a triumph, "sectionalism" has been rebuked, and abolitionism has been staggered and stunned.
Likewise, Dred "shocked many in the North who had been content to accept slavery as long as it was confined within its present borders," so likewise Obergefell shocked many who had been content to allow same sex unions as long as it was confined within states that voted it in, and as civil unions.
Thus the editorial which words are fit to be applied to Obergefell,
All who love Republican institutions and who hate Aristocracy, compact yourselves together for the struggle which threatens your liberty and will test your manhood!
And those of Frederick Douglass,
I have no fear that the National Conscience will be put to sleep by such an open, glaring, and scandalous tissue of lies ...[34] .
And what Taney had before stated is argued today in the light of Obergefell
Whatever may be the force of the decision of the Supreme Court in binding the parties and settling their rights in the particular case before them, I am not prepared to admit that a construction given to the constitution by the Supreme Court in deciding any one or more cases fixes of itself irrevokably [sic] and permanently its construction in that particular and binds the states and the Legislative and executive branches of the General government, forever afterwards to conform to it and adopt it in every other case as the true reading of the instrument although all of them may unite in believing it erroneous.[33]
Add Thomas M.Cooley General Principles of constitutional Law , Little Brown and CO ,1880 pp.227-230 on the “civil Right” of Marriage....In 1880 Cooley writes that the States which banned interracial marriage were not adversely affected by passage of the 14th Amendment—which in 1880 anyhow was not seen as affecting the States Right to regulate Marriage.And those States with the ban in place did not substantially harm the institution of marriage as a whole anyhow. (my fuzzy headed recollect o fwhat he published there)