Apparently, I'm not the only one who thinks the FMA was rushed to a vote too soon. The White House political people observed that in 2000, there were 4 million Evangelicals who didn't vote. They decided that the FMA would be their strategy for making sure this didn't happen again. So they decided to have an early FMA vote to force liberal senators from red states (e.g. Tom Daschle) to vote pro-homosexual. But in the event, they were 12 votes shy of cloture, so they didn't get the vote itself. The two Johns didn't even bother showing up to vote, they didn't need to. Ouch! So by turning marriage into wedge politics, I'm afraid they may have guaranteed gay marriage in all 50 states.
As for the idea of passing legislation to limit the powers of judges, is this really a good idea? There's a reason there's a judiciary: it is a check on legislative and executive power. We might regret taking away their power someday. But in the meanwhile, it looks a bit desperate to talk of such things. Kind of like FDR trying to stack the Supreme Court in the 1930s by making it have 15 justices, when the Court ruled against his socialist programs.
"As for the idea of passing legislation to limit the powers of judges, is this really a good idea? There's a reason there's a judiciary: it is a check on legislative and executive power."
I understand your concern, but the checks and balances haven't worked for a long time. The courts must be brought into line. If congress has the constitutional power to limit court juridictions, now is the time to try it. Yes, there is a risk it could get out of hand - but like I said, the courts already are. Maybe it will sober up drunken liberal judges to the fact they are not above the "consent of those ruled."