I guess I'd be a legal naturalist *insert moving speech about how all humans have all rights inherently*

I think the danger of saying that rights are something given to you by the state is that this implies that the state can define rights, which means that rights are not universal and instead change from government to government (I'm not saying this isn't the way things are, I just think this isn't how it should be). 

Off-topic, I wanted to pick your legal brain about something.  I know this girl whose father got remarried.  The woman he married had been a man for most of her life and had had a sex-change sometime before the marriage.  Now, the father recently decided to become a woman as well and has had a sex-change.  So they are both women now.  Does any part of this scenerio count as a same-sex marriage? 

Hmmm.... I'd say it's up to the citizens to demand their rights, so it is neither positivist nor naturalist. It is institutionalist, dependent on citizens exerting their minimal authority, to prevent a positivist scenario that is governed by oligarchy. Like we have now.