Zoomie1980
Senior Member
- Jan 16, 2008
- 1,658
- 128
- 48
Sometimes the majority is just about numbers and not the rectitude of something.
Doesn't the term "the tyranny of the majority" mean anything?
I have read elsewhere that some folks think that the US is a republic rather than a democracy (it's both) and that the republican form of government (and there's a good argument for republicanism as a theory of governmet, I accept that) protects the minority from the tyranny of the majority which allegedly occurs in countries with parliamentary forms of government.
Now what exactly did these judges do? Did they interpret the law? If so then they did their job. Should judges have that ability taken away from them? Should there only be the executive and legislature now? That way lies tyranny.
You mightn't agree with the decision but that doesn't mean the judges did anything wrong, they just interpreted the law in a manner you don't like. It's not the end of the world.
I would think the folks who don't want gays to marry can start it all over again and this time make sure they comply with the law.
Jeez it's not a fricking natural (or unnatural) disaster, it's just a legal ruling.
Referendums, more often than not, are often ruled unconstitutional. The people of California simply pursued the wrong legal angle in this case. They will now pursue an amendment to the Consitution, which the court cannot override. But ammending a Constitution has a higher bar than a referendum...for good reason, but once done, is virtually impossilbe to be undone.