[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.

[tpaine]

Our constitution is not "on fire". --- 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.

The constitution did not cause this problem. -- We've agreed that politics did.
Changing our constitution in attempting to solve our political problems can only endanger our own liberties.

You seem unable/unwilling to understand that we must change our politics.
Is it because of a vested interest?