Topic: Gay marriage
Quote: This judge stated that it was UN-Constitutional (according to California Constitution) to limit marriage to opposite-gender couples.\nSo . . . . . why did we vote in 2000 on the definition of marriage? And since the majority stated that marriage was between one man and one woman - why was that not taken into consideration with this ruling?\nWhy is it that when the people speak their voice, it is IGNORED?? Not only the mayor of SF - but this Superior Court judge as well?
Response: State-level governments are largely worthless, in my opinion. It is complete absurdity to allow Constitutions to be ammended based on the vote of the people. People as a whole are largely biased, uninformed, and care only about the wellbeing of the majority, persecuting the minority any chance they get. Simply put, the will of the people is too often to benefit the majority and persecute the minority, and this can be seen everywhere throughout history. The will of the people often deserves to be not only ignored but put in a little can and crushed, for the voice of the people is not the voice of the people at all; it is the voice of the majority.\nI cannot know the intentions of the creators of the California goverment when they created their judicial system, but if it was anything like the intentions of the founders of our nation, then the judges are doing precisely what it was intended to do: judge laws which persecute the minority, assuring that the government cannot engage in such persecution without a whole lot of effort and not having to fear retaliation. If the point of judges was simply to give in to whatever pesecution 51% of the population wishes to force upon the other 49%, then our government would be tyrannical in no time.\nYou may feel that a bad precedent was set, but I consider it a far worse precedent for a judge to have given into the majority, to ignore what he feels is a destruction of freedom and equality, simply because it is popular to do so. I would also recommend that the California Constitution be judged based on the fact that it likely has conflicting statements, for example, it may state that everyone must recieve equal protection under the law, of which this is a clear denial.\n
0.4