OK..quick Time Out regarding sovereignty:
The establishment and rise of the United States was built directly upon mass violation of sovereignty, first of the hundreds of nations already here (upon whose lands the United States imposed its rule), next upon the colonial subjects of the United States (over 99.9% of whom didn't even have symbolic, let alone substantive, influence upon the structure of the new country's laws), and finally upon subsequent generations of descendants of both.
So this nonsensical idea that it's OK to run roughshod over the political will of the people most of the time (as was done to create and maintain the United States in the first place), but when it comes to the rights of a vulnerable minority, all of a sudden the mob rule of playing into the prejudices of an entitled majority (or forcing the vulnerable populations to appeal to the whims and convenience of that entitled majority) is spun as being based upon sovereignty ultimately residing in the will of the people, that's a pile of rabid exceptionalism.
There is nothing sacred or warranting special respect in the intent of the Founders. They openly sought a plutocratic empire, and that's what they got. If we chose some completely irrational and self-destructive commitment to the intent of the Founders, then the vast majority of us would be chattel slaves, indentured servants, baby factories, or some combination of each...and all without so much as even a symbolic vote in policy matters.
The principle of protecting a potentially vulnerable minority against the political will of the majority is actually strongly present in the original constitution, though it was coming from a motivation directly counter to the lofty ideals falsely associated with the U.S. Constitution today. In the time of the Founders, the issue was one of how to protect a tiny, elite-within-elite, rarified owning class insulated against the well-known (and perfectly legitimate) grievances of the rest of the population. Ironically, due to the exact kind of public pressure and political organizing the Founders sought to suppress, the Constitution has been recast and reframed as a legal tool for reclaiming (rather than suppressing) democratic political will.
Back to reality: the cries of "states' rights!" and "popular sovereignty" etc. spouted today as knee-jerk responses to carrying out modern constitutional principles to their logical end...are really paper-thin rationalizations for supporting a completely irrational advocacy against political equality for gay people. At the end of the day, it comes down to this: there is no rational basis for discriminating against gay and lesbian couples. To the extent that the Constitution is upheld, such discrimination is patently unconstitutional. Yes, technically, the SCOTUS hasn't ruled on this yet, but implying that there's no basis for them to do so, or that discrimination isn't really discrimination until and unless some kind of judicial review official stamps it as such...is disingenuous...it's like seeing dissidents get murdered in the street and then pretending they're not dead until you receive an official death notice about them.