Do you really trust our congress to legislate accordingly, considering what's happened with activist judges? MA Supreme Court dictated their congress enact laws. What's to stop the US Supreme Court to dictate to the US Congress the same? Especially if dems get control of the presidency and houses? This all stems from activist judges and public servants. What we really need is enforcement of the laws of the land. Until we have more conservatives leading this country, we are in dire danger of becoming a completely socialist nation. I understand you're wanting no more amendments, how do you propose to get our elected officials to enforce the already written rules with an out of control judiciary?
If support for appropriate legislation specific to gay marriage cannot be garnered in Congress, why would we expect a constitutional amendment be passed instead?
How about an amendment defining legislating from all judicial branches of government and defining the penalty for such actions?
I'm also not saying there aren't problems with the Constitution as it currently is amended, either.
The 14th Amendment, for example, needs serious clarification to plug the hole through which the federal government has slipped to expand into areas not enumerated by Article I Section 8. I'm not saying it's a bad amendment in its intent, but its language has permitted very bad things to happen. The assault on religion under extension of the 1st Amendment beyond a limit to Congress is just one of the many bad things the 14th Amendment is used to justify.
And the 17th Amendment, which has resulted in the state governments being cut off from direct representation in the Senate for almost a century, and radically changed the balance of power in our republic with disastrous results, needs to be repealed altogether. State governments need to be reempowered, hand-waving arguments like "patronage" notwithstanding.
What we specifically do NOT need is to put a definition of marriage, which has and always should fall under the purview of the states, in our federal constitution. While it may solve the problem at hand, the unintended consequences it opens the door to are too hazardous to risk.
The problem here is not marriage, or gays or any of that, it's the way in which the federal government is running roughshod over the states and the people.
Slapping a gay-marriage band-aid on the Constitution is not the answer. Restoring the proper balance of power between the federal and state governments is. And if it can't be done, gay marriage will be the least of our worries.