laws and words have specific scopes and meanings. They don't have unlimited flexibility as liberal justices tend to think.

Partisan nonsense.

. Neither the intent nor the text of the Constitution requires the states to redefine marriage.

The intent is irrelevant, but the text of the 14th Amendment requires states to redefine marriage just as they did in Loving v. Virginia.

If the people of the United States have "evolved" on the issue, then the Constitution provides them with a very clear and fair way for the document to intelligently "evolve" – they need to convince a supermajority of federal and state legislatures to amend the Constitution.

If the people do not "evolve" to rid themselves of unconstitutional institutions and laws, it is the courts job to get rid of them.

If we fail to use the amendment process and permit judges to substitute their own definitions and judgments for what the people actually meant when they passed the law in the first place, then we no longer govern ourselves.

Except that isn't what is happening. The judges are looking at what the people actually meant, and realizing that the laws that are passed are violating the constitution, and striking them down. The people are still limited in what they can pass by the Constitution, that does not mean they lack self governance.

Why vote or use the political process if unelected justices strike down our laws and impose their own as they go?

What the judges have done does not diminish voting in any way. Pass laws that are constitutional or, like you said, pass constitutional amendments if you want the constitution changed.

In fact, why have a Constitution at all? If it's "evolving" or "living," then it's not really a collective agreement of the people – it's a pretext that allows judges to invent rights and impose any moral (or immoral) position they want against the will of the people.

It is all predicted upon an agreement of the people. You'll notice social change always follows a critical mass of public support.

So the author of the above brings up some great points. The 14th is not some magical door through which the liberals can impose their beliefs on society.

You are right. But it is a magical door through why people can fight the intolerant in order to protect their rights.

The Constitution stipulates equal protection of the law. The majority cannot take the rights away from a minority through the ballot box, therefore, it is up to the Justices to interpret the law in order to stop the majority from infringing on the rights of a minority.

Those who seek to use unelected justices to force their beliefs on society can be seen to be engaging in a war against the people. Take for instance the homosexual marriage issue, only 1 state did the people actually vote in favor of homosexual unions, in 11 states liberal politicians without the consent of the people have enacted legislation allowing for homosexual marriages. In the rest of the states, the people either voted in Constitutional Amendments stating that marriage is between a man and a woman, or the states enacted legislation that does the same. So now this is the law of the land, yet the tyrants on the left want to force their beliefs on society, so they get the unelected judges to legislate from the bench. This needs to be snipped in the bud. States like Alabama are taking the lead where they told the federal courts to Eff off

laws and words have specific scopes and meanings. They don't have unlimited flexibility as liberal justices tend to think. Neither the intent nor the text of the Constitution requires the states to redefine marriage.

Regardless of which law we are talking about, all laws are judged by intent, not just execution. This is a fairly basic and universal concept.