Sure, the court can invent all sorts of "rights" wherever it wants, that's the nature of the beast. Everyone currently has the right to marry, based on the current and historical definition. I have the right to the pursuit of happiness. If that pursuit for me includes buying a beer on Sunday, surely that right can't be infringed without a "compelling reason", correct? Oh wait, many states have blue laws on the books without any compelling reason other than a religious historical background. This is no different.
Look... the premise is that SCOTUS tells us what the Constitution means. You have to accept that notion to dialog about the reality we live in.
I'm not a Tenured Professor of Constitutional Law so I'm not grading you...

. If you don't agree with my position that is fine. But the following is what I gleam from the opinions I've read, argued and live by.
Anyhow, think of 'Rights' as living in buckets... There are three of them...
Basic Rights Bucket, Fundamental Rights Bucket and Inalienable Rights Bucket...
Inalienable Rights are those like; Life, Liberty and etc..
Fundamental Rights are like what I posted earlier.
And, Basic Rights are the lowest class of Rights which might include stuff that the State may say is a privilege like driving an auto by using a Rational Basis to do that. Each bucket has attached the criteria needed for denial.
Now for my logic... RE: Marriage...
The court has held that marriage is a Fundamental Right! The State or the people by referendum might seek to deny that right to a
person for any number of reasons... like; under age, mental capacity, and maybe others. But, that flows across
all people. There is no group that suffers that limitation. Everyone does. The State has shown a very compelling reason to do so...
OK, If you look at all the buckets of Rights you'll find just one and maybe two that although are Individual and Fundamental Rights they require another person to enjoy it... You have the right but it takes two to tango.
So here comes the State and says everyone has the right to marry... including Gays... But you can only marry a person of the opposite sex... Thus they have created a Suspect Group in which the individual has the right to marry (Gays who seek to marry a person of their own sex). The State says its basis for this limitation is; Tradition or Religion or Kids get confused and so on..
So, we've not only a Suspect Class but also a Fundamental Right at stake.
That combo requires at least passing Intermediate Scrutiny. But the notion of Tradition, etc. does not even meet the test of Rational Basis... Tradition is not the basis of the law... A compelling reason is... Ergo, the effort to deny must fail... You don't even need to decide if Equal Protection or Due Process is involved... IT fails before it gets to that level... Denying a Felon the vote... passed the Compelling reason and Due Process and Equal Protection aspects and so the Fundamental Right to vote is denied.
My favorite example involves a person seeking to park their car on the street... Along comes the state and says no parking here... NO one can park there.. The state has a rational basis to do that so no debate... But then a week later you see the curb painted with 'Parking permitted to all but one armed, Irish midgets....' What that notice does is creates a Suspect Class of people (One armed Irish midgets). They file against the State based on this denial of their right to park there... The State's argument is: Well, one armed Irish midgets don't park well. They take up extra space cuz they can't see as well to park... or some such.. That is not rational and it violates equal protection. The State needs having a compelling reason and their 'excuse' don't make it..
But, as I said, I'm not a Tenured Professor of Constitutional Law and even if I was it is for the Trial Court, Appellate Court of the District and the SCOTUS to decide that issue and then we'll all see what the Constitution provides regarding One armed, Irish midgets and their Parking situation.