I think strict constructionists DO divine original intent. Words are only a combination of letters, so of course one has to make a determination of what they mean. And they only can mean what was intended at the time they were written.
If there were a constitutional right "to be gay", it should be only construed as a right to happiness, not homosexuality. Okay, bad example, but I think it illustrates my point.
You may be thinking of "textualism" which is Scalia's philosophy (and which which I agree).
Actually I don't know what point you were trying to illustrate with your homosexualism example. Please restate.
jas3