And furthermore ...

From what I gather you would support a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman (although I don't know why we conservatives are "inconsistent" in that advocation, but you "quasi-Libertarians" are not). At any rate, from what I gather you would support such an amendment but consider its pursuit a fools errand given a liberal court could simply overturn it at a later date. Am I missing something here? I am of the understanding that a court, any court, can not "overturn" or invalidate a Constitutional Amendment. It has to be repealed in the same manner it was passed (well, of the 2 ways available that is). This is why the 15th Amendment was specifically called for, to do away with the notion that a person can be regarded as property or 3/5th a person in a way that made it untouchable by future courts. Prohibition had to be repealed, it wasn't overturned. In other words an Amendment to the Constitution can not be removed, revoked or found unconstitutional by any court. Is that not the case? So a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage via a definition you support would be impervious to the whims of activist, liberal judges ... thus is not a waste of time, and I assume it being a staple of the conservative movement, a plank if you will, would be supported by Titus G. Libertarian (libertarian except for the New Deal of course ... now there's a pile of consistency in ideology ...oy).