No, because a legal document that requires any kind of supermajority to amend must leave enough undefined, while making core principals clear, otherwise it would, after a few decades, become completely unusable. There has to be ambiguity and expansiveness in a constitution, or it will fossilize.
And really, the Founding Fathers were coming from an English Common Law tradition, where judges had long ago evolved the power to interpret law, and even invoke the notion that some laws held supremacy over others (which is how the British constitution still works today). There has to be structure, but room for future governments to be able to govern without having their hands tied.
Ultimately the biggest problem, particularly when you deal with those parts of a constitution that deal with civil liberties is that there are going to be clashes of liberties, and it is going to be up to the courts to decide where the balance is. A constitution that tried to predict all such clashes would be huge, unwieldy and still couldn’t contemplate all possible iterations.
At the end of the day, Obergefell v. Hodges sits within a general framework, dating back to the Constitution’s writing, that personal liberties should be as expansive as possible, and state interference in those liberties be limited to necessity. The “risks” of SSM are very few in my view, and thus whatever perceived or real clash with other liberties are relatively minor.