You don't think that people who had just overthrown two governments in less than 15 years wouldn't want to keep the ability to throw out the third government, should it become necessary to do so?
If the guarantee of equal protection of the law prevents all discrimination, then gay marriages could not be prevented, as they have in many states.
A gay man has the right to marry a gay or straight woman, if such person would consent to be his wife. Likewise a gay woman has the right to marry a straight or gay man, if such person would consent to be her husband.
A marriage consists of one man and one woman. The notion that a marriage need not contain any men, nor any women, is simply bizarre.
If this country failed to restrict fissionable materials to "groups" of free people, it would have no basis for existence. The same logic holds for most other types of military weaponry. No court is going to find such restrictions unconstitutional, therefore no amendment is needed to clarify the obvious.
If the Constitution may be freely disregarded in manners the Founders clearly never intended, provided only that the Men in Robes think there is sufficient need, how can it really mean anything? While there may be some dithering about what certain things meant when written, I've seen no evidence whatsoever that those who wrote the Second Amendment indended it to be anything less than absolute with regard to free people and militarily-suitable weaponry.
First, I'd hardly call the RW an overthrowing of the British government. They successfully overthrew local British authority but I believe the British Crown somehow survived. Secondly, I hope you are not calling the constitutional convention somehow an "overthrowing" of a government. If anything, it was the putting together of a more central government, because they realized that the loose confederation of states was a disaster waiting to happen. So if they feared government so much, it seems strange they would opt for one substantially more powerful than the one they were replacing.
A gay man has the right to marry a gay or straight woman, if such person would consent to be his wife. Likewise a gay woman has the right to marry a straight or gay man, if such person would consent to be her husband.
Well, you see I agree with that, but if states did not make such distinctions, then prohibition of a gay/gay marriage would be unlawful discrimination. As it is, states can articulate a compelling reason for that discrimination, one reason a constitutional amendment is unnecessary.
If the Constitution may be freely disregarded in manners the Founders clearly never intended, provided only that the Men in Robes think there is sufficient need, how can it really mean anything?
Fair question, but what do you mean intended? Who determines intent? You ever read the Anti-Federalist Papers? If so, you will recognize that there was little common agreement on the meaning of much of the Constitution, and the Federalist Papers were the product of 4 of those involved only, and reflected their particular views. But given the importance the Founding Fathers put on the new government and the Constitution, I doubt many had in mind giving every citizen the means to overthrow the government if he so desired.
While there may be some dithering about what certain things meant when written, I've seen no evidence whatsoever that those who wrote the Second Amendment indended it to be anything less than absolute with regard to free people and militarily-suitable weaponry.
Hang on to that thought. I seriously doubt you will find a judge in the Country who will agree with you. I believe someone said that the Constitution is not a suicide pact.