[aristeides]

But a constitutional amendment can also accomplish what you want, by merely empowering states to legislate on a matter. That is precisely the kind of cautious measure you want. And where the Supreme Court has said the states cannot so legislate, an amendment may be the only solution.

[ellery]

I just have an admittedly knee-jerk reaction about amending the Constitution (for the same reason I reject all this "living, breathing document" business).

That said, it would be consistent with previous points about the Constitution limiting government, not individuals, if an amendment were worded to limit the feds' power over the states to decide such issues. That also seems like a wise way to deal with these issues -- base them on community standards. That way, communities would have the right to approve gay marriage, or ban it. And individuals would have the choice to mobilize their own communities or move to a community that best fit their values. It seems like the best way to go -- this "one size fits all" approach seems to be the antithesis of federalism.

[Rebellans]

Thanks for your comments, aristeides. What do you think is going to happen with the federal DOMA? I'm sure there are some Supremes who would like to overturn it, but hasn't Congress removed the issue from the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction, per Article III, Section 2?