From a reader:
The notion that the Constitution should never be amended is, as you say, silly. But isn’t that something of a straw man? I would support a repeal of the 16th Amendment (the income tax), or a balanced budget amendment, or a term limits amendment, but not the FMA. And not because I think a marriage is whatever any two people want it to be. It’s just that the definition of marriage (either one) does not belong in the Constitution.
The Constitution is supposed to set up how we govern ourselves and protect minority interests from the “tyranny of the majority.” It is not supposed to be the battleground in the culture wars. I realize the other side is cheating through their judicial activism, but I think the answer to that has to be reasoned debate, not micro-managing the culture through the Constitution.
Another way to battle judicial activism would be to amend the Constitution to take away judicial review on Constitutional matters. I do not think that would be a wise amendment, but it would be an appropriate thing to do by Constitutional amendment.
Bottom line (“So, you’re a bottom-line man, eh?”)*: The FMA does not belong in the Constitution any more than Prohibition did.
*Name the movie, and I’ll buy your book when it comes out.