In response to:

Redefining Marriage Sign of a Lost Society

Happy Jake Wrote: Nov 26, 2012 6:23 AM
"and civil rights issues ARE the province of the courts, not the voters." Incorrect. In our system, at the federal level, laws are the province of the legislators. At the state level, the legislatures may take that responsibility for themselves, or they may allow the people to participate directly - the exact details vary by state and are spelled out in the state consittutions. Legilsation is NEVER the duty or responsibility of the court. The courts are only supposed to rule on disputes based on the letter of the law. Only if the law is unclear should courts even "interpret" the law.
David3036 Wrote: Nov 27, 2012 12:01 AM
But federal courts don’t just try cases -- they also try laws, examining them in relation to what the Constitution allows. The judges who have handed down the landmark gay-rights rulings in recent years have done exactly what federal judges are appointed to do. And some of them were appointed by conservative presidents.
Don't Tread On Me3 Wrote: Nov 26, 2012 7:05 AM
If a law is so ambiguous it needs "interpreting" the court should just say it's too vague to enforce & leave it alone. 1 of the big factors promoting statism is this tendency to pass bills that don't make law but transfer legislative discretionary authority to bureaucrats & the courts.

One significant development in the recent election was votes in four states approving same sex marriage initiatives. Until now, all previous state referenda to approve same sex marriage – 32 of them - failed.

The Wall Street Journal editorial page – a place where conservatives usually turn for intellectual capital – saw this as cause for celebration.

According to the Journal, marriage definition should come from voters, not from court orders. Americans, they argue, have “shown themselves more than capable of changing their views on gay marriage the democratic way.”

In other words, our definition of marriage should follow process, not...