i thought he answered just right... regarding interracial marriage, he pointed out there was a Constitutional Amendment to address that... regarding homosexual marriage, the Supreme Court took it upon themselves to create law...
The problem is that the framers of the 14th Amendment did not intend for it to prevent state laws against interracial marriage (as evidenced by the fact that it took a hundred years before such laws were struck down).
I think the far stronger argument is the one Roberts made in his dissent - that bans on interracial marriage (and the others he discussed - limitations on marriage by people who owed child support and things like that) did not go to the core definition of marriage, but were rather laws that were layered on top of marriage. In other words, by prohibiting interracial marriage, states were not "defining" marriage, but rather were restricting access to marriage. By contrast, all the state amendments at issue in this case did was to define marriage as it has always been defined.
“...he pointed out there was a Constitutional Amendment to address that... regarding homosexual marriage, the Supreme Court took it upon themselves to create law...”
She wasn’t asking him about the remedies, she was asking about motivations that caused opposition to both concepts. She was saying that the motivations were the same. They are not.