[Viva Le Dissention]

Less so because it sets a dangerous precedent that, up until now, we have more or less avoided (with some exceptions, of course).

When you try to back-door this stuff (no pun intended), it totally destroys the purpose of the Constitution, which is designed to protect the rights of the People against government intrusion. The whole purpose is to limit the power of government. Our Supreme Court decides when government has overstepped its bounds. To effectively "overrule" the Supreme Court (or, at least, heading off the Supreme Court at the pass, as this would be doing) with a Constitutional Amendment is to subvert its original purpose--we are taking an government action, which has been declared unconstitutional, and then changing the Constitution to allow it? What does this accomplish except to tell the government that it can pass temporarily popular but unconstitutional legislation just by passing an Amendment.

We get things like income taxes and popular vote for senators because of things like this. Anytime the People cede power to the government, I consider a dangerous step--much more so, say, than the "threat" of Steve and Jim getting a marriage license.

[aristeides]

The 11th Amendment overruled the Supreme Court (Chisholm v. Georgia). The 14th Amendment overruled the Supreme Court (Dred Scott). The 16th Amendment overruled the Supreme Court (Pollock). Constitutional amendments are how the Supreme Court gets overruled in our system.

[Sabertooth]

Less so because it sets a dangerous precedent that, up until now, we have more or less avoided (with some exceptions, of course).

When you try to back-door this stuff (no pun intended), it totally destroys the purpose of the Constitution,

The above more appropriately describes Lawrence than it does an Amendment that prevents Supremes' anti-marriage precedents from bearing fruit.

Kennedy and the SCOTUS and the advocates of homosexuality have asked for this, and they're going to get it. A small group has used the courts to try and subvert the Constitution and force their values on the vast majority of society. The vast majority is going to fight back, and squash them. There will be collateral damage, but that die is now cast.

[Antoninus]

When you try to back-door this stuff (no pun intended), it totally destroys the purpose of the Constitution, which is designed to protect the rights of the People against government intrusion.

How exactly is it "back door" for the PEOPLE to use their Constitutionally defined check on a rogue Supreme Court? Amendment is the only method we have to reign in these people.

The real "back door" trick in this sorry situation, was the SCOTUS's magically creating a "right to sodomy" and claiming it's been part of the constitution all along. It's not--anyone who can read can see that.

The six black-robed despots need to be slapped down hard and quickly for attempting to foist this immorality upon the entire country.