"that is where all laws start and are only challenged on their consitutionality up to the SCOTUS". What??? Another non coherant rambling. Clean that up so it has a purpose.
What is that with the left, you just can't go very long without calling names and making personal attacks? Ah, but you sure are not juvenile, that must be me.You show how juvenile your argument is
Oh, are the people going to vote the SC justices out of office or something? Nope, they are pretty well insulated from any consequences of their decisions. But, another rambling, incoherent mishmash there.when you blatantly ignore what I said, which included that it wasn't just the SCOTUS and their decisions, but also how well the people took those decisions as to what was or wasn't constitutional. If the people did not approve in supermajorities of a decision the SCOTUS made, then the people could blatantly change the Constitution or simply ignore the decision if they wanted to do so. But the key is they have to have the numbers to back up their defiance, whether it is defying a ruling legally (say not issuing marriage licenses to interracial couples) or changing the Constitution via Amendment (such as perhaps an Amendment that plainly stated that states controlled who could get married in their state completely, by popular vote or legislative action or that marriage was only between x person and y person, and no others were eligible to be recognized).
If that's so easy, why not just amend the Constitution to give the federal government power to allow ssm? That would be the best way to do it, crisp and clear.