Absolutely not. The remedy for judicial activism is impeachment, not a constitutional amendment. People just don't want to be bothered with performing their civic duty. It's easier to bitch on fora like this.
The Constitution must be protected at all costs.
Nobody is forcing his or her beliefs on the people of the United States. Activist judges are trying to force taxpayers to pay for the expression of those beliefs.
Personally, I don't care if two men or women want to live together under the same roof. That's their right in a free country. When you get down to it, marriage is a division of labor and an economic convenience as much as anything else.
In the stone age, the men hunted and the women raised the children. For most of American history, men worked on the farm or in a factory, and the women raised the children. Thanks to the fruits of our form of government here in America, we have other options these days, moral or not.
If two men or women want to live together, I don't call it marriage, but I don't mind calling it a civil union.
I think the rights of people who chose that lifestyle should be protected under law just like "normal" couples. The law should provide for inheritance of assets for the survivor and the adopted children. The law should not give them special benifits.
When two men or women share a household for a lifetime, they should be able to pass their assets to their "spouse" regardless of sex.
Personally, I believe that homosexuality is immoral, but it is not the function of government to prevent people from doing immoral things.
Nor is it the governments place to put the imprimatur on homosexuality but thats exactly what the courts are doing.
And the reason that these hypothetical homosexual lifetime partners cannot write a personal services contract and reciprocal wills under existing law, in fact under common law as it has existed for millenia, is what?