i mean, the way the supreme court has operated historically (and especially in the last few years) means they can delete basically any law they don’t like, but you are correct that the decriminalisation of homosexuality is only based on a court verdict. many states never removed the relevant laws from their books, so they could in theory be enforced again if the court changes their precedent.
i think the way they want it to be understood is “if elected, i will so thoroughly address all of the issues you care about that you don’t have to vote on them again”, which is kind of reasonable until you try working out how that would happen