OP - Sorry, but “WTF”?
3 years of law school taught you the Amendment process was constructed to stop judicial activism? Where did you go to school, Scooby-do U? There was no such thing as judicial activism at the time of the founders. Our nation’s common law history came from England, where courts relied primarily on the technicalities of the writ system to deal with cases. Hardly active! These judges were the very epitome of legal formalism. The American courts themselves didn’t have any special power to interfere with the other branches until Marbury, possibly much later. And modern ideas of judicial activism only popped up in the 1900s, spawned by criticism of the Lochear era of jurisprudence.
The Amendment process is there so that, if enough people think we need to change one of the basic rules of our society or add new ones that are as fundementally important as freedoms of speech, religion, and whatnot, we can. The amendments should hang together, in a way.
The reason that someone would object to a Constitutional Amendment to, essentially, prevent states from enacting statutes that have (virtually) no cost and only serve to make people feel welcome (indeed, some states amendments want to bar private companies from extending marital-like benefits to same sex couples) is that “marriage = man + woman” is not a fundemental right or protection from government power. There’s always a spectrum of moral-to-liberty for every amendement, but I think we can agree that an anti-gay Amendment is pretty darn moral. And not much like ensuring freedom of speech.
-C