"Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups."
While this amendment may be the only practical reaction, I myself am basically and instinctively opposed to the mentality that requires an individual constitutional amendment to undo each and every single bad Supreme Court decision. This is the same reason I am opposed to the flag protection amendment.
For one thing, such amendments imply that whatever the courts say the Constitution means is exactly what it means. I myself disagree profoundly with this. If the Constitution does not require states to recognize the legality of homosexuality, then it doesn't, no matter what any court says. While I am not a Jacksonian, I would have to repeat that President's words: "The Chief Justice has made his decision; now let him enforce it."
Ultimately this entire problem of the creation of "rights" for select activities stems from the very enumeration of rights we call the "Bill of Rights." Whatever its original intention (namely, to prevent the Federal Government from interfering with how masters treated their slaves), it has become over time not a restraint on the federal government but a positive granting of rights along with an empowerment of the Federal Government to enforce those rights. The Confederate movement may argue that the Fourteenth Amendment is entirely responsible for this, but this in fact merely hastened the process. An enumeration of rights was bound to be interpreted eventually as positive grants by the government rather than restraints on the government. Whatever his motives, Alexander Hamilton was right; the "Bill of Rights" was ultimately subversive of a Constitution that was never meant to be anything but a rulebook for the workings of the Federal Government; it transformed it into a grand document of political philosophy which may be invoked for ever loonier purposes.
Instead of amending the Constitution each and every time the Supreme Court does what we all know it's going to do, there are actually two alternative plans that would be much better:
1)Amend the Constitution restricting the Fourteenth Amendment specifically to its original purpose of ensuring that the Freedmen be recognized as US citizens by all the states, or (better but less likely)
2)Repeal all amendments to the Constitution other than those that actually deal with the rules for operating the Federal Government and the amendment that abolished slavery (which was necessary because the slavery inherited by the Founding Fathers was given iron-clad protection under the original Constitution).
I know most FReepers will disagree with me here, but please believe me that I am just as horrified at the latest victory for G-dlessness as the rest of you (if not more so). But the continual adding of amendments to a constitution that was dangerously subverted by a "Bill of Rights" is ultimately just more of the same. And, as I said, it implies that until the amendment is passed the ruling of the court stands as the official meaning of the Constitution.
It's hard to see how this would work if the system did not give somebody's judicial opinion the force of law. Courts wouldn't know what to do with it. But any unanimous Supreme Court decisions are not likely to be that controversial. In a controversial case, there's bound to be a dissent. So the system of overruling would just have to give that opinion the force of law.
So, I would suggest something like the following. Where the Supreme Court decision is 5-4, 2/3 votes of both Houses of Congress give the minority opinion the force of law. Where it's 6-3, you need 3/4. Where it's 7-2, you need 90%. Something like that.
If you're unhappy about giving Congress that much power, you can also require presidential assent.
In this way, you could overrule Supreme Court decisions without cluttering the Constitution with too many amendments.