I think thats a misreading of the 14th.
If the 14th applies only to Congress, and Congress choses to ignore it, then what's the check against that abuse? What's to prevent Congress from ignoring all the BOR? The answer was provided very early in the Republic, in Marbury v. Madison. This has in turn been codified and accepted by the other branches. You cannot read the Constitution in a vacuum, or it becomes a useless parchment.
The 14th does not reference the Supreme Court at all.
Neither does any part of the BOR. See Marbury.
As for stepping in, judicial review itself is not a constitutionally granted power of the court.
Not specifically, but it's been accepted since the first Judiciary codes and the creation of the Art. III court system. Marbury resolved this conflict. If you want to read the Constitution in a void, then the ONLY judicial office Congress need appoint is the Chief Justice of the SCT. All other judicial positions are creations of statute. If Congress did this, there would no longer be any meaningful review of any statute. But that would be a very fast road to tyranny. This is why it's important to read the Constitution in the context of its evolution over the life of the Republic.
Breyer's comments seem to imply that minorities (ethnic minorities? religious minorities? political minorities? I dunno) simply by virtue of being the underdog deserve some kind of special protection from the political process.
That's the system that's been created. I don't agree with it, but Breyer is correct in describing it. You can plug your ears and hum, but thus is the world.
Thus the court would insure that gays have "a right to marry" each other. This regardless of the state ballot initiatives outlawing such unions. that is why I descry judicial activism that overturns the will of the people.
Um, there has been no such opinion from the US Supreme Court. It sounds like you've jumped over to an attack on the Mass court system, which is a totally different issue.