I still don't know where you're getting this airline stuff. There are not, as far as I know, laws against airlines requiring overweight customers to purchase two seats, nor have I said that there are or should be (based on any amendment).



You're factually incorrect about corporations in early America; see the link below.



Just so we're clear: the amendment passed because of a fear-based campaign which asserted, without a shred of evidence, that allowing gay marriage would mean that every child in public school would be "indoctrinated" into believing that it was acceptable. Now, I personally think it should be taught in public schools that gay relationships marriages are not inferior, but that's a separate issue from merely allowing them. The amendment passed because people were scared into believing their rights as parents would be taken away; it had very little to do with the actual issue at hand.



Every other branch of government in the state or the country? If it's the latter, that's definitely not true. Also, as I'm sure has been said several times already, issues relating to minorities should not be put up to a vote by the majority. It is quite directly contrary to the founding principles of our government.



That's always how it's worked. Courts made pro-slavery rulings on pro-slavery laws because, at the time, slavery was enshrined in the Constitution. The 13th Amendment was passed so those rulings and laws would become obsolete. If you review the history I'm sure you'll agree that opposition to that was also on a large scale; do you think they should have waited? Similar statements can be made about suffrage (based on race and gender) as well as segregation. If Congress decides that the Constitution as it stands is lending itself to interpretations they oppose, they have the power to change that.



Slavery and Jim Crow support my position, not yours. People have let their biases keep them from correctly interpreting the principles of our government in the past, just like they do now. That doesn't make those principles any less valid or important.



The Bible and the Koran do not apply to United States law, as we are a secular country.



Social change needs to be forced through if it's ever truly going to happen. The courts and legislators have both played this role in the past, but right now the legislators of our country are hamstrung by their own cowardice in the face of ever-more-fickle public opinion (propelled by this relatively new environment of ubiquitous communication), as well as the anti-minorities "public referendum" systems of many states. That makes it the court's turn to step in, just as they did for segregation.

Your arguments seem to be predicated on the idea that arbitrary social conventions are worth more than coherent principles. The history of this country shows the opposite: as time goes on, we achieve progress by discarding such conventions in favor of better adhering to the principles we claim to respect. The idea that social change should require "consensus" simply is not supported on either a psychological or a historical level, as shown by the many examples I've brought up in this post and elsewhere. There is a tipping point for social change, but it's the point at which lightning strikes the ground, swift and momentous, forcing the eye to adjust; it's not the gradual sunrise, the sky becoming gray and then growing imperceptibly brighter from one second to the next.