That's the wrong direction, and it is unconstitutional. The reality is that the world just got nicer for a lot of people. The theoretical "reinforced" root problem effects literally no one. Before today, that root problem existed. It still exists today. There is no scenario today for real people that is worse than yesterday.
I'm not willing to throw gay couples under the bus because it doesn't suit me that the government has a role in marriage. It has had a role in marriage for longer than you or I have been on this earth. This doesn't strengthen that notion in any way. The government has been granted no new power over your relationships than it had yesterday (just because you or I don't like that it has any say in relationships is not what is up for discussion), and it is disingenuous, or at least misdirection, to suggest otherwise.
I'm disinclined to celebrate an expansion of rights of a group that mostly relies on a "gotta get mine" mindset than one of true principles of liberty.
That's absolute bullshit. That's "those people" kind of talk, lumping everyone who shares one characteristic into one group and dismissing their rights as meaningless because they aren't fighting for your preferred cause.
Among the most intersectional activists I know are queer people of color. They're the folks standing up for immigrant families in detention (which is a quite lonely activist area) at a much higher percentage than the population at large, for example. It's certainly not an issue I see white straight male libertarians get up about (I fit that description in many regards, but I'm frequently embarrassed by how self-involved and self-serving the so-called "liberty" movement is).
It's not "meaningless" to want equal treatment (or even special treatment, technically). But like I said, it reinforces government as the giver of rights and that's the wrong direction.
Having every gay couple wait another couple of decades until everybody gets their head out of their ass to have basic rights like visitation of their partner in the hospital, inheritance rights, co-parental rights of children, etc. is an unacceptable moral compromise, and it is heartless to demand that millions of gay Americans make that sacrifice so that the law can look like I want it to.
We still have a long way to go to recognize all of the shapes relationships take (I'm non-monogamous, for example, and don't really expect to see multi-party legal unions in my lifetime), but making one huge group of people suffer while those other things get sorted out is an ethically untenable option, for me. And, honestly, I suspect this is a step in that direction...the religious loons will continue to campaign for changes, because of this. And, we can continue to push for reform.