Like it or not there is a right to bear arms in the Constitution. Judges didn’t invent it.
By contrast, the Constitution does not define marriage. It doesn’t define it as a conjugal partnership—as all states did until recently. It doesn’t define it as something else (e.g., a form of sexual-romantic companionship or domestic partnership that, as such, could be entered into by two persons of the same sex, or by three or more persons in a polyamorous ensemble). Rather, it leaves the definition of marriage (shall it be defined as conjugal or something else?) to the states.
If a state chooses to define marriage as a conjugal relationship, it cannot exclude people from marrying others with whom they can form a conjugal union (beginning with consent and consummation) for arbitrary reasons (e.g., because the spouses-to-be are of different races or ethnicities, or are the same height, or have different color hair, or whatever). That WOULD violate the 14th Amendment’s equal protection guarantee. But sexual difference (unlike, say, racial similarity) is of the essence of conjugal union. It (unlike racial similarity) is not arbitrary. Indeed, it is the very opposite of arbitrary. So the alleged “right” to same sex marriage is a pure judicial invention. Unlike the right to keep and bear arms, it has no basis in the text, logic, structure, or historical understanding of the Constitution. And yet . . . .
. . . the DC police chief does no prison time for denying lawfully requested gun licenses. Kim Davis sat in a jail cell in Kentucky.
Some “equal protection.”