I am not a legal expert, but it seems to me that as much as we hate it, the amendment was created and passed in accordance with proper procedure. And if you actually paid attention to the arguments presented when the court heard the challenge, the side favoring the dismissal of the amendment was rather weak.
The judicial branch can only interpret the law, not create or rewrite it, except by invalidating law via deference to higher pre-existing law - which was not justified in this case, and would likely not hold up under technical scrutiny had they tried to. It is extremely unfair for everyone to criticize a court that has done as much as they have to help the marriage movement for not overstepping their bounds.
There is a proper way to combat measures like this, and that is to mobilize the people, or at least the legislators, by showing them that gay marriage does not hurt anyone, so as to CHANGE the law such that the courts and whoever else have the opportunity - or obligation - to interpret and follow it in a way that is consistent with what is morally right.
We WILL secure marriage rights throughout the country someday, and hopefully the world. But while there are many ways to go about it, forcing judges to lie about the meaning of the law is “wrong, wrong, wrong!”.