The type I'm talking about begins with being a social conservative (not necessarily including all though). When one of that type encounters liberal causes that trample on states' rights (Roe v. Wade) or individual rights (gun control), he is a strict constitutionalist calling for the rights of the states and people to be supported over federal tyranny. That their victories occur in the judicial is not an issue; we're talking about federal power (whether it be legislative, executive or judicial) versus state and individual rights.
However, when the subject is a pet cause of social conservatives such as national drug laws, censorship laws or man/woman marriage laws, he suddenly becomes a constitutional liberal who doesn't care that they are egregious examples of the federal government seizing power to step on the rights of the states and/or people.
Of course it's an issue. The usurptation of powers granted to the people and their legislators by the judiciary is the source of much of the animus and angst of the people on both sides of the political spectrum.
When a court in Massachusetts decides, by a one vote majority, decides to make new law in direct contravention of the Mass constitution that will effect every other state in the union, then those judges have made that issue a national issue.
Amending the constitution is, by definition constitutional and it has the added feature of incorporating a republican form of government. I would prefer that amendment to simply state that marriage is not the purview of the courts but of the people and the states.
However, the Massachusetts constitution has a provision stating exactly that and it didn't stop their star chamber from making new law. So, while I don't think amending the Constitution declaring marriage is the union of one man and one woman is the best way to go, I understand those that think it is the only way to go.
The only branch of government that is weilding a tyrannical stick is the judiciary and they need reining in. Now.