The writer of the April 1 letter "Constitution, not states, determines our rights" correctly referred to "rights guaranteed under our Constitution."
Unfortunately, the editor got it wrong in drafting the headline. Our country was founded on the premise that there exists a higher law, higher than man-made law. That higher law, which many refer to as natural law, is characterized in our Declaration of Independence as based on "self-evident" truths from which our rights as humans derive. That founding document presented reasoning to the effect that because certain British laws and acts sanctioned by them were inconsistent with that higher (natural) law, the British government had forfeited its moral authority to govern.
That male and female sex organs are complimentary, i.e., designed by nature to mate with each other, is also a self-evident truth. So self-evident that it has become part of our vocabulary, e.g., "female threads" and "male threads." Heterosexual unions are consistent with this self-evident truth of natural law; homosexual unions are not.
With regard to the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution, every homosexual individual has exactly the same rights, as an individual, as does a heterosexual under existing federal and state laws. What the petitioners are asking of the U.S. Supreme Court is that it fashion a new right for couples, as couples.
Hilton Head Island