The OP's contention that the judicial activism about the oxymoronic same-sex "marriage" being all about the equal right to "marry" is simply misplaced.
In those states where there is no "homarriage" or such an aptly named domestic partnership civil union statute to grant same-sex committed romantic relationships the same public and private recognition as the "marriage" domestic partnership civil union statute in those states grant, that's why those states are having their, in essence, "no public and private recognition of same-sex committed romantic relationships" condition challenged by the courts, thus resulting in their ban on the oxymoronic SSM overturned.
If these states would institute a "hommariage" domestic partnership civil union statute for same-sex committed romantic relationships, that would give public and private recognition to these relationships, then no judge would overturn any statute these states make reaffirming the reality that "marriage" means "between a man and a woman as husband and wife", as it does mean and has always meant.
The constitution understandably grants the right of recognition of rights of specified domestic partnership civil unions.
The constitution does not grant the right to call them all "marriage".
The SCOTUS will address that reality around June of this year.
The right response will be that states must grant such unions legitimacy .. but they can call those unions something other than "marriage".
It's the same as not allowing cat owners to have their own shows. That would simply be wrong. But, to deny cat owners the choice to call their shows "dog shows", that makes perfect sense with respect to the foundational test of definitive propriety.
Neither is it wrong to deny cat owners entry of their cat in a dog show.
These are obvious realities of an analogous nature that need be respected from an intelligent perspective.