I was being sarcastic, bbauska. I know that the Constitution can be Amended. The Gun debate centres around one of the amendments, so it should be obvious.

Not sure why the Constitution would need to be changed re: gay marriage. We may soon see the USSC determine if that's the case (the hearings suggested that they may well conclude that it doesn't)

Please note that I commented upon RickyP's two examples. I said nothing about Gay Marriage or your sarcasm (which I had no problem with, mind you.)

ah well, we both miscommunicated I guess.

bbauska

Great idea in changing the Constitution... Perhaps that should be given a try.

Since the 14th and 15th amendments came about in 1868 and 1870 they are actually clear examples where the Constitution changed but the way the nation conducted itself for another 75 years didn't reflect the current interpretation of the Constitution.
Although the Amendments existed, Jim Crow Laws that contravened the Constitution denied the rights to people of color in many states until the Civil Rights laws of the 1950's and 60s actually enforced the rights.(Prohibitions against inter race marriage included in this...)
Indeed the 14th Amendment forms much of the legal argument by proponents of same sex marriage . It may have been unimaginable in 1870 for the 14th to have been interpreted to offer this protection. Today, its pretty likely to be interpreted that way by the current Scotus...
So, Bbbauska, this demonstrates that the Constitution is subject to change in the way it is applied within society. Therefore,the appeal to the immutable Constitution is wrong. Not just because it can be amended but because the way it is utilized by society can change as society changes.
That could happen to the right to bear arms as well...
I'm not being sarcastic here. Only pointing out to Tom that his appeal to a right......as somehow immutable and unchanging in application is historically wrong.