The majority opinion from the 6th circuit was kind of weird, the judge essentially says to ignore the constitutional question at hand and just let the will of the people prevail.
He is essentially abdicating his position as a judge. And how exactly is one group of citizens (the straits) denying rights to another minority group (gays) seen as "fair-minded?"
Perhaps in the same way judges don't overturn minimum-wage laws any more? After all, they do interfere with the right of contract. How exactly is one group of citizens (employees) denying rights to a minority group (employers) seen as fair-minded? Once one gets beyond explicitly enumerated rights, the question of what should be a right and which rights should prevail when they conflict is not always an objective decision suitable for a judicial decision. There are worse ideas than having a change in what is considered to be a right than having such changes being legislated, even tho in the case of same-sex marriage it means slowing down a change that is pretty obviously going to happen sooner or later.
