[inquest]

Actually all we really need is an act of Congress taking away the jurisdiction of courts to hear these kinds of cases. Congress does have that power, and it would only require a simple majority in both houses, rather than the arduous process of getting a constitutional amendment passed.

[Celtman]

Actually what we need are the impeachments of a few judges.  But, fat chance.

[JCEccles]

Actually all we really need is an act of Congress taking away the jurisdiction of courts to hear these kinds of cases.

And some liberal court would find the act unconstitutional. Mind-boggling, legally preposterous, but entirely possible.

I am reminded of the scene in 2001 a Space Odyssey when an astronaut orders supercomputer HAL to open the doors to the space station: "I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that."

[AuH2ORepublican]

"Actually all we really need is an act of Congress taking away the jurisdiction of courts to hear these kinds of cases."

---

I have studied this issue, and it is not altogether clear whether Congress can take something away from the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction without having another federal court be available to hear the case either in original or appellate jurisdiction. Article III, Section 1 says that the federal judicial power shall extend to all cases arising under federal laws or the U.S. Constitution, and thus a court may conclude that Congress violated Article III, Section 1 if it took the power to review "arising under" cases from all federal courts.

And in any event, a state supreme court could also declare a state constitutional provision to be in violation of the U.S. Constitution, and if no federal court had appellate jurisdiction that state court decision would be the final word. Thus, without a clear federal constitutional amendment protecting the institution of marriage, we'll be at the mercy of liberal judges no matter what we do.