Right, if only majority ruled in this country. Let's scrap the Republic and have tyranny of the majority and life will be lovely.
Actually, the constitution was intended to address the tension that exists between the protection of the minority from the majority
and the majority from tyrannical minorities. While the majority cannot trample upon the unalienable rights of homosexuals as constitutionally guaranteed, the tiny homosexual minority cannot impose by force of law its own ideology and cultural assumptions upon the majority without restraint. Constitutionally, the majority can impose delimitations upon homosexual's ability to alter the broader culture to their liking, such as openly homosexual Scout leaders, grade school teachers, or the imposing of homosexual ideology upon captive audiences of impressionable grade school children. There is nothing "unconstitutional" about that, or anything immoral or repressive. "Gay" culture must remain, to some degree, for the sake of the survival of the Judeo/Christian moral norms that are society's only defense against ultimate moral/cultural degeneration and collapse, within some buffer zone between it and the natural family.
As marriage is not a "right" at all in any constitutional sense (which is why it is never mentioned, along with many other things, in that document), homosexual marriage should, at all events, be a moot constitutional dead horse. Marriage and family are the core, foundational unit of a free, civil society, and homosexuality, by its very nature, is a direct assault upon that institution. They are mutually exclusive
by definition. as well as by the longstanding psychological and sociological imperatives of "Gay" culture.
The idea that the constitution was created solely to protect minorities from majorities is ACLU science fiction, not historical reality