I am a lawyer and I have a pocket constitution, but I don't carry it around with me. I am inspired by your dedication. :)

I agree with your take on the Constitution. The Bush approach with Amending the Constitution for such a purpose is unrealistic. It takes something important like alcohol to do such a drastic thing. I do think we should amend the Constitution, however. The Constitution should include a Federal Right to Privacy Amendment. It should state "Congress shall make no law abridging the right to individual privacy in one's home, physician's office, or relationships; absent a compelling governmental interest." Such an Amendment would protect the right to choose whom you have a relationship with, whether you want to bring a child into the world, whether marijuana is your drug of choice over alcohol, whether you want your child to go to public or private school. etc.

it's nice to have some discussion about Democratic "values."

it's not traditionally listed as one, but i would list the constitution as a value.

one does not need to be - nor should have to be - an attorney to understand the principles of our constitution.

the founders were men of the people - they believed in the common sense wisdom of the masses - democracy, if you will.

in order to amend the constitution to prohibit the union of certain people, the radical right-wing will need to invalidate one of our most core principles: equal protection under the law.

it is our government that grants the civil benefits of marriage: joint tax returns, medical records, custody, and a host of other benefits that benefit our society.

my take has always been to let the churches decide on their own, how they frame the religious/spiritual aspect of marriage.

and as for the civil benefits of marriage, our constitution holds that we can make no law that is not equally applied to all; so, if certain people want to take these benefits away from anyone, they will also have to take them away from themselves.

i'm gonna have to get one of those pocket constitutions, it sounds pretty nifty!

a copy of the U.S. Constitution as well as a copy of the Commonwealth of Virginia's Constitution handy. But not in my pocket I'm afraid.

Yes, you are technically correct, although, as provided for in Article V of the U.S. Constitution, two-thirds of the states would initiate a convention for proposing amendment(s), thus bypassing the U.S. Government headquartered in Washington, D.C. To date such a convention has never convened, although the various states have submitted hundreds of applications down through the decades.

like abortions, should be rare, safe, and legal. I would, however, be all in favor of an amendment banning republican presidents. :)