"So what"?! What, was "whatever" taken? ... Let's be serious, not flippant. In the abstract yes, some practices"might need to be overturned for the sake of equality. But this isn't slavery. And we're not talking about just "some practice" here. We're talking about redefining a fundamental institution around which civil society has been built for thousands of years. It's a monumental change, not just different wording on a legal document. That's not a small matter of "so what" that should be determined by the interpretive whims of a handful of judges.
As to your equality point, homosexuals are just as free to marry members of the opposite sex as I am. Now that may sound flip but it speaks to the truth about marriage and the practical reason we give it special recognition via law and government policy. The state doesn't legally recognize traditional marriage because the spouses love one another. If so, then you'd have a point about equality. It would be unequal to recognize heterosexual marriage and not homosexual marriage if this was about love. Gays love too, after all. Leaving aside religious traditions for the moment, the state accords legal privileges to marriages because it recognizes the once self-evident benefit to society of promoting stable male and female relationships which in turn build supportive environments for the procreation and nurture of children.
In a free society the right is there unless you can justify the restriction. Your religious beliefs or because you think it's icky is not sufficient to continue the restriction.
What's so bad is that 232 years after the declaration of independence someone has to explain this to people.