I agree with you. it is not the federal governments place to decide what people should believe or not believe in when it comes to immorality.
One’s opinion of something should never be mandated by a government directive, or in this case, a federal constitutional amendment.
At least by giving each state the opportunity to approach an amendment, as deemed by need, residents of that state have direct influence by requiring and participating in a vote. But when a judge directs the mandate, the majority people have effectively lost their right to fair and equal representation.
Your post is interesting and has got me to thinking. Our Constitution allows for the legislative and executive branches to check each others powers, i.e. with the executive veto and the legislative override. But there really is no similar stipulation when it comes to decisions by the judiciary.
Now I’m just throwing this out there (and please keep in mind that I am on some pretty strong pain killers thanks to my recent back surgery) but what would you think about allowing for a legislative ‘override’ of a judicial decision to overturn a law? I know that having something like this in place could get a little dicey, but it really is the only feasible solution I can think of to reeling in activist judges outside of imposing some sort of mandatory retirement.
I’d be interested in hearing what you think.