[JohnnyZ]

But the fact is that it's not a fast response - that's not how amendments are designed.

Who said it was fast? The author's point was that it was damn near hopeless, and he's wrong.

[livianne]

actually, one of his issues IS that it isn't a fast response.

"The long delay connected with getting an amendment through Congress would allow incumbents to obscure their position. Neither Republican nor Democratic lawmakers want to vote on divisive issues like gay marriage. Some in both parties would say they support traditional marriage, yet find a multitude of objections to the amendment: the idea of changing the Constitution, the need for more expert testimony, etc. Even now the amendment's sponsors don't agree with each other about the proposed text's meaning and whether it should be changed."

things that take a long time are more apt to be corrupted, which is one of the points he is making. Not only can smaller actions go through faster, but it is more likely to find agreement among those who oppose same sex marriage but may not support an amendment.