[ellery]

I just have an admittedly knee-jerk reaction about amending the Constitution (for the same reason I reject all this "living, breathing document" business).

That said, it would be consistent with previous points about the Constitution limiting government, not individuals, if an amendment were worded to limit the feds' power over the states to decide such issues. That also seems like a wise way to deal with these issues -- base them on community standards. That way, communities would have the right to approve gay marriage, or ban it. And individuals would have the choice to mobilize their own communities or move to a community that best fit their values. It seems like the best way to go -- this "one size fits all" approach seems to be the antithesis of federalism.

[jwalsh07]

There are two problems as I see it.

The SCOTUS is part of the government. They are wielding power over the states like a club and need to be constrained. Quite consistent with "limiting the powers of government".

The second is that an issue like this should be debated widely and publicly or we risk what we have witnessed from Roe, thirty years of culture wars and animus to the point where, as Torie points out, federal judicial appointments become impossible.