"The founding Fathers meant for it to mean the same today, tomorrow, and a 1000 years from now."
Exactly.
This is why so many conservatives who were against gay marriage were still against amending the constitution to prohibit it.
If we change frequently to suit the current thinking, it ceases to have any meaning.
If that's what we want to do then we might as well burn it.
I agree.
If the Constitution were changed weekly, it would still have meaning. Its meaning would be what the words say today, which might have little relation to what they said yesterday or what they will say tomorrow, but it would nonetheless have meaning today.
The danger lies not with amending the Constitution to address changing situations, but rather with trying to 'interpret' it to deal with changing situations without actually amending it. The former approach is risky, to be sure, but the latter is downright dangerous.
One thing I wish could be established as a rule would be a requirement that all court decisions be supportable using only cited constitutional and statutory references, without reference to stare decesis. Stare decesis could be used to justify the selection of one possible interpretation over another, but could not be used to justify anything which could not be justified from the original text.