[tpaine]

We need to fight fire with fire. We need to realize that these are different times that require meaningful action.

You want an amendment that declares our government has the power to dictate the 'rules' about marriage?

Sure...or do you feel that the people thru their elected officials should have no say in the matter? Polygamy? Incestual marriage?

States can reasonably regulate such issues by using 'compelling interest' doctrine. I see no compelling reason to regulate private sex acts between willing adults.
___________________________________

The Fathers foresaw plenty even if only in the abstract, they couldn't have imagined all these judges who are hostile to the constitution.

But they did.. They wrote in checks & balances on the judicial system that aren't being used for political reasons.. -- You want to change that balance by amendment? - I see a dangerous precedent.

Allowing juducial activists to ignore laws because they have the power to trump law and redefine society is the dangerous thing. Where is the "check & balance" in San Francisco where the law is being ignored today?

They will come..

I see no shame in using constitutional law ( the amendment process ) to right the wrongs.

Its not a matter of shame. It's the principle of abiding by our constitution as written.
______________________________________

I even expect that they would have felt the 2nd amendment was enough of a deterrent to judicial tyranny and would be shaking their heads and covering their faces if they could see what we have allowed this country to become.

A majority in this country want more gun control.. Are you willing to see them amend our constitution to reach that goal?

They are already banning the hell out of guns without amendments ( or repealing of the 2nd )

Of course they are, and if you're willing to allow precedent for majority rule amendments, banning anything will be possible.

but that aside, there is no constitutional right for some guy to marry his father. Judges have forced the need to amend.

Cute comeback, but no cigar. Marriage is a religious institution with civil law riders.. Lets keep it that way, and out of our constitution.

It's time to amend with a vengeance.

Such 'vengeance' can backfire, imo. ---

If the car is on fire, a backfire is of little concern.

Our constitution is not "on fire". Our political process is, and the politicans responsible should be at the stake.

[Jim_Curtis]

States can reasonably regulate such issues by using 'compelling interest' doctrine. I see no compelling reason to regulate private sex acts between willing adults.
----
Who would be the final arbitrator for these regulations and doctrines...ah yes, now I remember...the same judges who are ignoring the current laws.
___________________________________

Allowing juducial activists to ignore laws because they have the power to trump law and redefine society is the dangerous thing. Where is the "check & balance" in San Francisco where the law is being ignored today?


They will come..
----
They will come? In what form will they appear? The scofflaws are the final arbitrator about the legitimacy of your checks and balances.



Its not a matter of shame. It's the principle of abiding by our constitution as written.
---
amending the constitution IS abiding by the constitution as written...ignoring law isn't.
______________________________________


They are already banning the hell out of guns without amendments ( or repealing of the 2nd )

Of course they are, and if you're willing to allow precedent for majority rule amendments, banning anything will be possible.
----
You are trying to make the case for anarchy. Your argument is that to assure the constitutional rights that I might enjoy that I would be wise to appease the illegal and not-constitutionally-guaranteed activities of others.



Cute comeback, but no cigar. Marriage is a religious institution with civil law riders..
----
So are the ten commandments. The "civil law riders" are being ignored...civil law is being rode doggie-style.
***
Lets keep it that way, and out of our constitution.
---
Lets amend the constitution to preserve the institution of marriage.



If the car is on fire, a backfire is of little concern.

Our constitution is not "on fire".
---
Correct, the political process is and the judges are holding the torch.
***
Our political process is, and the politicans responsible should be at the stake.
---
Yes, the political process is on fire and the way to put out the fire is with the constitutionally available process of amending. It is a better option than to use the 2nd amendment to put out the fire.