Koan, gay marriage really isn't one of my issues, I'm not fighting against it, and this post isn't opposing it, but I know that you support it, and also care a lot about democracy (even at times above other important values), so how does this look like democracy?
I can understand the first judicial rule than the ban is unconstitutional under the CA constitution. I don't know if it is or not, but judicial review, while undemocratic, is an important part of our system. But then another judge (the "closeted homosexual" part appears to be ad hominem, but then I didn't create that picture and it isn't required to make the point) calling a constitutional amendment unconstitutional? They can be so in a technical way, but here the claim was more the substance of the amendment doesn't meet the constitution, but the constitution changes with an amendment. And amendment could for example end the amendment process. And then if the people don't have standing to challenge a judge striking down an amendment, the power of judges goes to far, and its very undemocratic.
Please respond to the questions of the process of the issue, I'm pretty sure I know what you feel about gay marriage, this post isn't about same sex marriage, its about the judicial decisions, and how they are undemocractic. If it helps imagine the same thing happened to some amendment you did agree with. |
