If someone in 1969 had proposed a constitutional amendment to ban abortion, there would have been plenty of people who would have opposed it because there was "no possible reason for it". Why, abortion has always been left to the states. It would be unthinkable that the Supreme Court would ever rule otherwise!
A great British parliamentarian once noted that the greatest acts of statesmanship involve forseeing preventable evils, and preventing them before they become reality. Unfortunately, such statesmanship is a rarity. That's how we got into this current immigration mess. It's how we ended up with Roe vs. Wade, affirmative action, and McCain-Feingold.
And it's how we'll end up, within the next decade, with a Supreme Court fiat ordering nationwide gay "marriage", and all that accompanies it (gay adoption, gay curricula in the public schools, etc.), followed a few years afterward by a court ruling stripping churches that don't perform gay "marriages" of their tax exempt status (based on the Bob Jones ruling).
In order to force homosexual marriage on the public, the government will have to assume vast totalitarian powers, invading every single aspect of life.
Wait, they already do that.
But it will increase geometrically, and it's already so bad it's intolerable.
Remember "whatever is not mandatory is prohibited" - or is the other way around? (The Once and Future King)
You are correct that the USSC has the last say in constitutional issues. And you are also correct that few saw this coming. Yet I have explained in detail why it is far too early to engage in the lengthy process of a constitutional amendment. There will be many warning signs that the courts have found a weakness in the DOMA. If a district court tosses out DOMA, I believe there is little chance any but the 9th Circuit would concur. Nor do I believe the current USSC would concur.
A great British parliamentarian once noted that the greatest acts of statesmanship involve forseeing preventable evils, and preventing them before they become reality. Unfortunately, such statesmanship is a rarity. That's how we got into this current immigration mess. It's how we ended up with Roe vs. Wade, affirmative action, and McCain-Feingold.
If I read you correctly, you feel that a number of constitutional amendments are necessary? Not sure where you are going with affirmative action though. Nor should either the left or right look to every conceivable issue that may come to light at some future date and begin a series of constitutional amendments.
And it's how we'll end up, within the next decade, with a Supreme Court fiat ordering nationwide gay "marriage", and all that accompanies it (gay adoption, gay curricula in the public schools, etc.), followed a few years afterward by a court ruling stripping churches that don't perform gay "marriages" of their tax exempt status (based on the Bob Jones ruling).
As far as I know, the only issue here is whether the DOMA protects states from having to recognize gay marriages from another state pursuant to Article IV. No constitutional amendment should prohibit any nontraditional marriages legalized within a state. A recent 11th Circuit opinion stated most categorically that it will not substitute its values over those of the state except where the BOR or the 14th Amendment are violated. I am comfortable with that.
What an excellent post!