Do you really think that one new judge would be able to reverse a decision that happened just a few years before his/her appointment (assuming that it'll take a couple of years for a judicial retirement)? Do you really think that the lower courts would bump the issue up to the Supreme Court again, considering they now have a ruling? Do you really think that the Supreme Court will risk the national outcry that would happen due to some upstart justice overturning such an emotional issue?
I'm being as polite as a can, since I'm baffled by your reasoning. I don't understand it.
And such a constitutional amendment would fail miserably, considering how many states you need and how many are becoming positive towards same-sex marriage nowadays.
Oh, I didn't think you were being impolite. I don't know what the courts would do, I don't know how much the case would be entitled to respect under the stari decisis concept, but I will say that it is possible.
I don't know if I, morally, would feel particularly happy about people losing rights that were once achieved, but I don't think the court has the power to GIVE rights. If the 14th amendment, which was designed to free blacks from slavery, allowed for same-sex marriages, they would've been performed since it's adoption.
The moral of the story is I want strict constructionists on the bench and just see what happens then. I don't believe Rubio, Jeb et al are actually sincerely opposed to SSM with the positions that they've taken.
But same-sex marriage wasn't an issue when the 14th amendment was adopted. It could be said to be a right, but one that absolutely no one acknowledged for decades.
There's also the fact that heterosexual marriage has profoundly changed since 1868. In 1868, marriage was not a union of two equals under the law. Changes since then have eliminated specific gender-based roles in civil marriage.
