rm007's Journal: The Brazilianization of American Constitutional Practice?

Regardless of one's view on whether or not homosexual marriage should or should not be possible, watching the current constitutional debate in Massachusetts and the wider discussions going on about the possibility of an amendment to the US Constitution sometime in the future, am I the only one who is wondering is this really a constitutional issue? If you read either the US or Massachusetts Constitutions, they deal pretty much exclusively with the structure and powers of government and courts, including nature and power of offices under the constitution & civil and political rights of citizens (i.e. their relationship to the government and the law). They do not deal with the details of how society should organize itself. Many laws have this effect, but Constitutions organize legal and political structures. There are constitutions that do this - for example, the Brazilian Constitution, specifically, Chapter VII, regulating family, children and the elderly. Now I have a great deal of respect for Brazil and Brazilians, especially their soccer and women, but is this really the constitutional precedent that Americans want for themselves? The detailed articulation of everything from what arms the armed forces shall have to pension levels and using lotteries to pay for social welfare has contributed to legislative deadlock that prevents government actually doing anything (of course, that may be a good thing) to help solve Brazils many social and economic problems. So I ask you, is this really what constitions are for in American practice? Or is that this is the only way to behave in a way that is otherwise unconstitutional?

... it looks like a bias towards one response to the issue is showing (guilty as charged), but to remove that: how about, if a constitutional amendment is required, wouldn't it be more in keeping with American constitutional tradition to put it in the form of a general principle on how laws are made e.g. that laws will be consistent with Christian values (... can't do that? really?) Any ideas as to an amendment that is consistent with American constitional practice?