[nickcarraway]

You are missing the entire point. The courts are assuming authority that they don't have. And if we let them get away with it, they are going to keep doing it, and to a greater degree. If you want gay marriage, don't trample the constitution to get it, okay. I find it disturbing you so casually dismiss the Constitution and the rule of law.

Don't come crying to me when a court somewhere decides that someone has a RIGHT to your private property.

[TKDietz]

I don't know that the Massachusetts' court assumed authority they don't have. I didn't read the case and I've never read their Constitution. I cannot offer an opinion as to whether the decision was proper given the applicable caselaw, statutes and Constitutional provisions. My main beef in this thread is that I do not believe an amendment to our national Constitution is appropriate under the circumstances.

I for one appreciate the system of checks in balances under which laws promulgated by the legislative branch are subject to judicial review. It sounds to me like you are the one who is casually dismissing this important safeguard. It worries me that I see what appears to be a push to do away with the power of the judiciary to determine the constitutionality of laws, which would further concentrate power in the legislative and ultimately the executive branch of government, thus greatly increasing the likelihood of abuses by government against the people.

Our system may be messy at times, and even downright dysfunctional for extended periods, but so long as we maintain our system of checks and balances our system should be self correcting. Concentrate too much power in any one branch of government and we risk throwing the whole thing permanently out of whack.