Uh no, not even close. Traditional marriage laws do not violate equal protection since they do not take into account the sexual preference of those wishing to marry. Thus as a male, the prohibition for me to marry another man applies regardless of my sexual preference.
The current spate of judicial activism that is overturning established state law makes a mockery of the Constitution. And passage of another Amendment isn't going to stop it. These judges are already showing that they do not give a damn about what the Constitution says.
> “Traditional marriage laws do not violate equal protection since they do not take into account the sexual preference of those wishing to marry. Thus as a male, the prohibition for me to marry another man applies regardless of my sexual preference.”
That sounds eerily like the approach used by states in Plessy v. Ferguson. The only things that appear different are names and subjects. The logic is the same.
Your assertion that SCOTUS ignores the Constitution ‘in toto’ is false.
SCOTUS does follow the Constitution when there are no polarized conflicts among competing amendments or when interpretation of certain amendments can be used as cover. In the case of DOMA, the 14th Amendment was used to overrule states rights arguments. Although this is disturbing, it is a result of the practice of jurists to be as general and encompassing as possible when writing amendments. This allows for abuse of interpretation.
A clear Marriage Amendment with clauses barring any infringement must be observed by federal courts if it is written well. And it will be written well if it calls out clearly that no other previous Amendment may infringe upon it.