You can't make arguments that assumes "facts" or principles of law that don't actually exist.

You want to argue that public policy favors gay marriage, that's fine. I think there are many legitimate arguments to be made in that vein.

But the only way your argument about "the founding fathers" works is if you assume the founders intended there to be a right to gay marriage in the Constitution.

The Constitution is a law.

It is a basic principle of legal analysis that you should consider the intent of the drafters of a law when you need to figure out what the law means or what it covers.

At the time the constitution was drafted, there is no evidence whatsoever that the drafters intended it to be a protection of the right to gay marriage.

In fact, when you consider American society in the late 1700s, it is highly unlikely that the founders would have considered the constitution to protect any right to homosexual conduct.

Again, this does not mean that people can't reasonably disagree about whether or not gay marriage should be legalized. It does, however, indicate that there's no evidence that opposing it is "pissing" on the Constitution.