Again salmon, walk a mile in another man's shoes. You are treating your view as inherently and infallibly correct. Ultimately, the concept of human rights boils down to what humans (at the time!) agree to be such. The inherent issue here, is that one group disagrees with the assertions of the other, and seeks to use the courts to claim the right to tell the other group to piss off.
One group believes, just as strongly as the other I might add, that gay marriage is an unspeakable moral affront. The other believes that this group is systemically oppressing them.
I again ask you to imagine a world where the terrorists have won. Would you view repeated court rulings against what you consider to be basic human rights as a triumph in the legal system?
If not, how do you propose that these people take repeated rulings against their beliefs?
Remember, ultimately, the very idea of a human right is a belief.
I agree that human rights are a social construct that can be easily debated.
But legal equality is not. That is objective and measurable.
When I say "human rights", it's usually convenient short-hand for "the legal protections that are ostensibly granted to human beings, even if they are not equally granted to all human beings in practice." If there are legal protections for white hetero men to vote, get married, carry weapons, etc, then when I say "human rights" or just "rights", it's under the pretense that the law is SUPPOSED to grant such rights to all human beings equally, not just certain demographics. If these legal protections are not being granted equally, then someone is being denied their rights.
If not, how do you propose that these people take repeated rulings against their beliefs?
How do I propose people take repeated rulings against their beliefs?
How do you propose people take centuries of repeated rulings against their legal equality?
It doesn't matter how strongly one group believes that gay marriage is a moral affront. It's objectively true that denying gay marriage is unequal distribution of legal rights.
A. The government refuses to discriminate, and fails the beliefs of bigots.
B. The government agrees to discriminate, and fails to recognize a group as human beings by legal standards.
Either way, the government is failing someone, right? And terrorism is a result of a group feeling disempowered and failed by authority?
But if you're more worried about terrorism as a result of scenario A than you are as a result of scenario B, then this is an extremely worrying double-standard, and I think it says something important about the nature of bigotry in society.