Reply #130: I will probably get flamed for this too. But just how far are you wiling to go in taking some issues

[totodeinhere]

away from the voters? I understand your reasoning, but isn't this a slippery slope? By your logic, why have elections at all? Why not just let a learned and enlightened small group of people decide everything?

Ultimately, even under the system that we have now the ultimate responsibility lies with the voters. If there is enough anger over this decision, a presidential candidate could run for office next time who will promise to appoint judges who will overturn gay marriage. And at the same time senatorial candidates could run promising to confirm those nominees. And if they are elected by the people then we will have to face the consequences. Or the people could elect representatives who will pass a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage once and for all. (I don't think it will happen. I am just throwing out a hypothetical.)

After all, the constitution was written in the name of the American people. Like it or not, ultimate responsibility must lie with the people. You can say that human rights should not be put up to a vote, but in that case, who is it who is going to decide what is a human right and what is not? If the courts decide this, again, judges are politically appointed and therefore are at least indirectly accountable to the voters.

IMO, the best way to settle the gay marriage debate once and for all is to do the opposite of what I discussed above, and pass a constitutional amendment on the federal level to legalize gay marriage nationwide, which I would support. That would settle things once and for all unless of course the amendment was later repealed.