The Court is the ultimate arbiter of the Constitution. Who are you to say they are misinterpreting it?
If you're going to take that attitude then what's the point of having this debate at all?
You haven't given any reasons. You are just leaning your argument on the whole "preference" line of baloney.
The fact that you disagree with my reasons doesn't mean I haven't given any. And just calling it "baloney" doesn't even come close to constituting a counterargument.
The Constitution simply does not require that preferences (or desires or whatever equivalent term you want to use) be treated equally. It's just not there, either in the text of the document, the history behind it, or judicial precedents that have been established up till now. You're free to try to come up with any evidence to the contrary.
What distinction are you drawing between homosexuals and heterosexuals that allows one the right to a marriage contract, but not the other? Spell it out, please.
Maybe if you can post where I said that, I can address it. But I'll just point out to you that if a state wanted to legislate that only same-sex unions would be recognized as "marriage", that wouldn't be discrimination against heterosexuals either, for the exact same reasons I mentioned.