1.) You keep saying that the Constitution isn't changed by way of social input. Rather, there is a specific process through which change must occur. However, where do you think the specific process begins? I'll tell you... It's through grassroots efforts, election processes, and political wins that put lawmakers in power to amend the Constitution.<quoted text>
Isn't it funny how you base the quality of a Supreme Court decision on if you get your way or not and not on the constitutionality of the decision?
BTW, your opinion on the direction of this country is irrelevant to this discussion. The Constitution isn't changed by social changes, it is changed through the Amendment process.
Oh, and another thing. If the SCOTUS upholds DOMA based on the opinion of the lower court which is- THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT LACKS THE ENUMERATED POWER TO DEFINE MARRIAGE, IT IS A STATE ISSUE PER THE 10th AMENDMENT OF THE US CONSTITUTION-- how then can they possibly mandate, as a federal entity, to the State how it defines marriage? The two decision are completely contradictory.
2.) You say that marriage is a states issue. But when the Supreme Court heard the Loving case, they found that the state of Virginia's laws against interracial marriage were unconstitutional. Their decision didn't change state laws, but it in essence made them unenforceable.
3.) The Supreme Court's role is to interpret the Constitution. And any activity that occurs in the U.S. is open for interpretation by the Supreme Court. The Court would be within its power to look at the law in CA that denies same-sex couples the right to marry and determine that it is Unconstitutional--just like in the Loving case.
4.) If states then want to try to muster the power to create an Amendment against same-sex marriage, then good luck with that. It failed before 7 years ago and failed under what was probably one of the most conservative points in recent history. I just don't think the political atmosphere is such that an amendment would pass now.