Jennifer Finney Boylan of the New York Times is unhappy with this week's ruling by the Supreme Court in favor of Masterpiece Cakeshop.  In "After Masterpiece, It's Time to Change the Constitution," he (Boylan is a man, born "James") proposes a constitutional amendment – he calls it the "Dignity Amendment."  His proposed text might read: "Equality of rights under the law shall not be abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex, sexual orientation or gender identity."

Boylan has a whole paragraph about what this amendment would not do: "It would not turn you gay.  It would not demand that bathrooms be coed.  It would not elide the differences between men and women.  It would not eliminate child support.  It would not force states to pay for abortion."

Silly arguments that sound devastating when shared over glasses of wine among a clique of New York progressives retain only their silliness when sobered up.  Would Boylan care to bet that voting Americans think his amendment would turn them gay?  Whom does he think he is talking down to?  Justice Kennedy gave the left gay "marriage," and immediately we began to hear about coed bathrooms, because the left always further slices any remaining bonds that hold society together.  After Obergefell, we were just as suddenly treated to the first virgin pedophile – appetizer to the main course.

There are two procedures for creating an amendment to the Constitution.  The first method requires that two thirds of the House and Senate approve of the proposal and send it to the states for a vote.  Then, three fourths of the states must affirm the proposed amendment.

The second method requires a Constitutional Convention to be called by two thirds of the legislatures of the states.  That convention can propose as many amendments as it deems necessary.  Those amendments must be approved by three fourths of the states.

The left has won most of its recent battles through the extraordinarily anti-constitutional court system.  In this way, the left has ruled over all of us since Roe v. Wade. 

Let Jennifer take the procedural route.  There would at last be a sense of honesty in such a proposal.  We would all prefer an outright winner-take-all vote as opposed to being ruled over by one man or perhaps nine.  In this way, the matter would not resemble abortion – hanging over our heads unresolved for forty years.

Get out the petitions, and let's see where we really stand on the issue of religious rights and the apparent shortage of gay bakers and gay cakes. 

Don't worry; it won't make you straight.