One of the respect-worthy things about Scalia (even Thomas) is that they believe(d) that what the Constitution says, should be followed. One of their fundamental differences with, say, the more liberal justices, is that you should not read new/updated rights into a document that says what it says. If on the other hand you say that justices should adapt to what the current interpretation of a document implies, then maybe it goes your way, but someone interpreting modern values differently might equally conflict with what you want.
In that sense their position is clear and stable. They don't agree that the rights you're claiming are found in the Constitution.
How then, do you change that or turn it to your advantage? You make laws and amend the Constitution to change the ground rules of society over time. And justices that take the above approach will, if they are reputable, continue to follow their adherence to what the Constitution (updated) says.
Now, as I said above, our system seems to be quite dysfunctional right now in that a lot of issues cannot be decided by society given our political reality right now. But having a court decide an issue when 50% of people disagree will not gain it any credibility, or resolve it for society.