Billnew said:
Alot of people are realizing that the topic is not going to forced on them and they have begun to consider it.
That the Legislators will decide for the public what is going to be allowed, rather then a few protected Judges.
As it should be.
Not just changing a tradition by a trial, but with legitamate debate.
There is, however, a distinction between judges ruling in favor of a citizen's right infringed on by a law which unjustly violates it, and the right of the majority (or their chosen representatives) to make laws other than those which infringe rights. It's fundamental to our system of government that that distinction be perpetuated. (Note that I'm not claiming gay marriage is a protected right; I'm discussing the more general principle you seem to be criticizing.)
Let me give you a parallel from this board: we all, as members, have the right to post within the rules, to report posts which violate them, and the moderators, as judges, rule when a post is reported. We didn't elect the moderators; they're appointed by higher-rank staff and ultimately by Erwin.
But it's our right to post whatever our views are, so long as we stay within the rules, without let or hindrance. If I could start a poll where the members vote on whether or not you, or George78, or Ginny or Outlaw, can post here, and they are banned as a result of a majority vote, then by the criterion you're advancing this should not be a problem. (I suspect in reality I'd get warned for "disturbing the peace and tranquility of CF" -- and justly so -- for doing that.) Or if we could elect our moderators, who would of course decide not dispassionately but in accord with their own interpretation of who's right in a given argument.
The majority rules, true. But the majority is constrained by the common agreement that some rights are to be protected from majority infringement. And an independent judiciary called on to rule in accordance with the Constitution and the principles of law, not the political preferences they may have, is the protection against that sort of mob rule.
The issue of what constitutes marriage and whether same-sex unions are or can be legitimate marriages is one for a Rule 4.2 debate in the proper forums. But the basic principle -- that a judge can rule in accordance with how he understands the Constitution to read, including equal protection under law -- and that a law which violates that principle -- that principle is acceptable for discussion here, and I for one stand foursquare against any doubletalk effort to sandbag it into the tyranny of the majority.
