Ok, but here's where you run into trouble for your statement. The 14th isn't just some one size fits all amendment, there are degrees of what the government must show. In this case, it has been established, even by Walker that SSM requires rational basis, and it has been shown, regardless of whether you agree, that by states amending their constitutions to place limits on marriage, they are by definition rational on their face. Walker didn't like that, even though he knew it, so what he did was invent gender as the basis for SSM, not sexuality. The lawyers in opposition, and since in many court cases have followed the Prop 8 guide and have argued rational basis. How this reflects upon your statement that people are afforded rights by collective compromise seems to be inconsistent with the way this is all playing out. It doesn't seem like there's any compromising going on, instead we have judges changing laws, laws voted on by the people, not because of tyranny of the will of the people, but because they simply don't like them.
Judges are writing law in America today, and to do so, they're changing the perception of the argument, by ignoring that the petitioners are petitioning not based on their gender, but on the basis of their sexual orientation. By invoking gender (Of which those against Prop 8 did not even argue in any of their briefs but Walker gifted them) Walker created a distinction without a distinction for the sake of raising the level of scrutiny to be considered by the court. That is NOT compromise, it isn't a collective, in fact, what Walker and seemingly every single judge thereafter has done, is effectively ignore the process by which rights are afforded, and or limited in the US, by manipulating the level of review. The real question that needs to be answered is: What is the nature of the SSM debate, and how should it be reviewed, and viewed by not only our judges, but by its citizens, and leaders?
Tim-