I believe that is purpose of the process of amendment.
In any event, such things were not implemented by rabid Christians to impress morality upon the nation as has been implied upon this thread. They were implemented as a necessity against criminal organizations.
Having been witness to many of the threads involving the online gambling legislation I'm finding that claim just a little too much to swallow.
I would be happy to see an amendment, if only to straighten out the Commerce Clause mess- But considering the dunderheads we have in congress, I am probably even happier to leave it be until a more appropriate time.
IOW, though, your objection is but a technical one- If the power were vested in the federal government by proper amendment, you would no longer have an objection to federal vice laws?
Internet gambling is another really good example of a moral issue that has grown beyond the state's reach... How is a state that is against gambling able to regulate and enforce against it? It's a real problem. But by the same token, I don't know how giving the matter to the feds solves that issue.
Perhaps such things would be best taken care of by creating more first-level domains (http;//xxx. ,http;//gam. , etc) so that they could be filtered out more easily by the states, not to mention individual persons. Such a scheme might be more favorable than more draconian means.
Another real problem is gay marriage. Since states are obligated to recognize the marriages performed in other states, Massachusetts' legalization of gay marriage is basically shoving gay marriage down the throats of all the other states. I am really uncomfortable with a federal solution, but I fail to see another way without a serious face-off at the state level.
-Bruce