Judicial Fiat, or to Amend?

Oooh, oooh, which process should we be using to fundamentally define marriage? Various obviously biased courts, local bureaucrats acting completely but imperviously outside the law, or a very arbitrary, complicated, and far-reaching process for Constitutional amendment that will be nigh-impossible to change 30 years from now?

I mean, I really feel for conservatives like at RightWingNews who want to bring some democracy into at least a little of this. But why do the same people who scream about how loosely we interpret the religious-establishment clause feel so comfortable about making more of these broad strokes?

If we just had simple vote to determine this, there wouldn't be nearly as many problems. Instead, no matter how the gay marriage debate turns out, look forward to years of court cases, struck down laws, angry pundits, and a disenfranchised majority.