The Constitution was drawn up by men who were residents of their own time, which meant they were willing to compromise on things like slavery. However, they recognized that they were fallible and put in a process through which the Constitution could be changed. Some more words by Alexander Hamilton: "Constitutions should consist only of general provisions; the reason is that they must necessarily be permanent, and that they cannot calculate for the possible change of things." I think most people would agree that abolishing slavery and offering equal rights for all men and women were positive changes to a flawed Constitution.

In Federalist No. 10, James Madison considered the possibility that a majority of citizens could "sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens." If that is not an accurate depiction of the current state of gay marriage in America, since the most recent polling data have slight majorities approving of gay marriage, it certainly is its story for most of our history.

Madison proposed a two-part solution to prevent the possibility of a "tyranny of the majority." First, rather than have the people themselves vote on issues, elected representatives should decide these matters because their "wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and [their] patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations."

Madison also argued that a diverse population would "make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens." While this works for a number of issues, unfortunately with gay marriage the widely shared Christian belief made it too easy for citizens to have a collective basis for denying rights to behavior that contradicts this teaching.

The purpose of the Constitution is to protect human rights. Every active amendment to the U.S. Constitution, without fail, was written to protect some specific or nonspecific group of people-the press, religious sects, racial minority groups, and so forth. It empowers people. The only amendment that didn't empower people was the Eighteenth Amendment, mandating Prohibition-and we repealed that one.

States regulate. Laws regulate. The Constitution deregulates. It untangles. It liberates. It takes power away from the government and gives it to the people, not the other way around. And it must do so in order to honor the words of the Declaration of Independence, which stated the purpose of government quite clearly:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights ... [and] that to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

If we amend the Constitution to restrict rights, rather than to protect them, we set an ominous precedent.

In terms of my race comment, I recall a number of comments/"jokes" you made about Trayvon Martin (not on here cause you would have been sent on vacation/banned) on the other forum. Referencing a number of African American stereotypes particularly about young black males, which you ultimately absolved GZ of any blame in the case. You even posted some "gangster" photos of Trayvon to show the forum "who he really was" and then when it came out that wasnt even him you never bothered to amend your comment or correct your post, others noted it. I would post these but I have no access to the other forum. Thre was also a comment you made about a black mother and a child abuse case, something to the effect of "she better be careful what she does with her daughter, thats her monthly check". I am paraphrasing here obviously. More recently, one just needs to read your affirmative action "joke" about the black guy who did the home invasion in the other thread.