My view is that no matter how inconvenient it may be for any party, a constitution should require a very high amount of consensus before being changed. No one party or interest should be able to gain sufficient dominance to unilaterally alter a constitution. That it means not everything you hold dear or everything I hold dear will end up being protected or pre-eminent isn’t a sign of weakness, but a sign that power in a well-functioning democracy cannot sit in one just set of hands, nor can liberties simply be left up to the mob.
Gay marriage is here to stay in the West. I’m not demanding that you see the rightness of it. Such a demand would be ridiculous. But by this point plotting to undo it isn’t going to work. Surely there must be more pressing problems out there than trying to take yet more swings at a pretty small percentage of the population.