[pganini]

"There probably won't be an ammendment. Ammendments take many years to work their way throught he process. Each of the individual states, and local governments has the ability to prevent this as well.
Besides, the constitution, as written, already prohibits this. In any event there will be a change in the SCOTUS in the near future that will right this."

This has become the law of the land already. It's up to the SCOTUS to interpret the Constitution and if they say that this is LEGAL, then this applies to all lower jurisdictions. I guess the only remedy is that they didn't use the 10th amendment in this case and it's possible that some state can impose their own laws, but don't be surprised if the case go up to the Supreme court again and get the same ruling (and now it'd involve the 10th amendment).

[Natural Law]

Your understanding of the role of the SCOTUS is flawed, but understandably so. Our federal system has its complexities and nuances. The SCOTUS only affirmed that a local law was constitutional, but it does not require it become law everywhere. It affirmed that the Connecticut law was constitutional, but does not require that the Utah law prohibiting this be scrapped. Should the voters of Connecticut choose to either directly change this law or elect representatives who change it the SCOTUS will not have power to act.