Regarding judges subjectively reading gay marriage into the Equal Protections Clause, please consider the following. Justices from the same generation that ratified 14A had clarified that 14A added no new protections to the Constitution. It only strengthened enumerated protections.
“3. The right of suffrage was not necessarily one of the privileges or immunities of citizenship before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, and that amendment does not add to these privileges and immunities. It simply furnishes additional guaranty for the protection of such as the citizen already had [emphasis added].” —Minor v. Happersett, 1874.
Again, since the states have never amended the Constitution to expressly protect gay agenda issues, gay rights have no constitutionally-based civil rights protections regardless of 14A.
Also note that the Supreme Court has historically sternly warned against interpolating meanings from the Constitution which is what these pro-gay activist justices are doing with respect to the Equal Protections Clause imo.
“3. The Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning; where the intention is clear, there is no room for construction and no excuse for interpolation or addition [emphasis added].” —United States v. Sprague, 1931.
One possible remedy for patriots to stop activist judges from legislating special interest rights from the bench is the following. Patriots need to work with their state and federal lawmakers to make punitive laws which require judges to do the following in every case which deals with the Constitution. Judges need to be required to promptly, clearly and publicly reference all constitutional clauses which justify their case decisions to the satisfaction of voters. And judges who fail to do so should be minimally permanently removed from the bench, possibly serving some jail time.
And when the Constitution is silent about a given issue, judges should be required to clarify that the issue is a 10th Amendment-protected state power issue.
Your point re: Minor v. Happersett is irrelevant. That quote concerns the “privileges and immunity” clause - no one is arguing that “same sex marriage” bans violate that clause. The argument is that they violate the equal protection clause. That argument is wrong, for reasons that get repeated over and over again in these threads, but the Minor language has no bearing.