The same is true here: marriage accurately means and has accurately meant "between a man and a woman as husband and wife" for a very long time. Now, gay activists are simply trying to redefine the word, obviously.
So, if gay activists were not trying to redefine the word, it would simply be inappropriate to allow gays to "marry", like it would be inappropriate to allow cats to be entered in a dog show.
Now, no one rationally goes around trying to redefine the words "dog" and "cat" so they can enter their cat in a dog show.
Yet, ludicrously, gay activists are trying to redefine the word marriage so they can get those they represent to be married and thus receive equal socioeconomic and geopolitical treatment in their relationship as a couple with the state.
Without the redefinition of the word "marriage", this would not be a "rights" argument regarding the class of rights known as freedom (aka liberty). It would then simply be a first-test argument of application, like is it applicable to argue for allowing a two-year-old to carry a gun under the heading of the human right of liberty to bear arms. The answer to both would be "no", obviously.
It is only within the constraints of redefining the word marriage to include more than what the word has always meant for a very long time -- between a man and a woman as husband and wife -- that the "gays should be allowed to marry" argument can be moved through the first-test of applicability an into the second test of rights.
The redefining of the word "marriage" is what makes the matter a "rights" issue .. and until that redefinition is accepted by the state, it's not a second-test rights issue, but a first-test applicability issue.