"...are there really any voters who don't feel played? I mean, there's a lot going on in the world that congress might spend its effor on."

But this doesn't apply equally to the courts? It doesn't take much time to vote on something. Why don't Dems simply vote to pass these measures if it's not very important.
Pledge of Allegiance shouldn't be a big deal right? But apparently for some reason the courts think it's worth their time.
I think a good rule of thumb is that if at anytime it's worth the attention of the courts it *proves* it's worth the attention of law makers.
Therefore: gay marriage, flag burning, and Pledge of Allegiance are example of what the Congress should focus on, and if the courts insist that a laws can't be passed because Constitutional issues, then the public needs to go through a constitution process that establishes what the constitution is. The Judges have no right to change the constitution- this decided by the People as described in the Constitution.

One justification used for passing laws from the bench is congress is unable to deal with it- in other words it *should have* considered it but for whatever reason is unable to.

So, if you don't think this is worth any effort, blame it on the court system- at lowest level it should have dismissed it.