Yes, when the will of the people is to persecute others. To use an obvious example of this (not meant to be the same situation as the courts overturning Prop 8), if the will of the people was to enslave black people, should there be courts to overturn it? Almost everyone would say yes. So clearly "the will of the people" is to have some checks on the will of the people. What this boils down to is opinion on what can and should be checked, not whether "will of the people" should be binding all the time...as a society, we've already decided it shouldn't. Today, the federal judge decided Prop 8 was unconstitutional. You're free to debate whether you think it is constitutional, but I don't see how this is a direct affront to the concept of voting or democracy. We're a constitutional republic, which means democratic vote can't overturn Constitutional principles.
I think that more and more the will of the minority prevails. As an example, it's why people who are faking disability and get turned down a few times just keep appealing to find that right judge. In Washington, Rossi lost the governorship when the right judge(s) allowed mysterious ballots and ballots from dead people to be counted. It makes no difference if the judges are left or right, it's a perversion of justice. The flip side to that, to be fair, is that sometimes the will of the majority is unconstitutional. The judicial branch is here to oversee that and to further protect the rights of all based on the current laws (or their interpretation of them). Voter based referendums must conform to statutory law. In this case, I haven't seen the decision so I don't know if it's a political decision by a judicial activist or a decision based on law. Where's Ed O when you need him?
Since the OP didn't provide a link, here's one to the story: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/201...lifornias_prop_8_in_win_for_samesex_marr.html
if it was unconstitutional, why vote on it in the first place? whether the judge is right or wrong in this case doesn't matter to me, i don't think a single judge should be able to overturn a vote that was made by 7 million people, ever. that is not a democracy.
Ah, who are these rational people? What if one of those rational people was me? What if I viewed you and your ilk as engaging in "[f]ear-based mob-mentality"? Would you still be in favor of me overturning a number of statutes you hold dear?
I think this is actually the second time the will of the people was overturned by the courts in this instance.
To quote Agent K from Men In Black: "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it."
For the record, I would have the government get out of the marriage business altogether. But that's beside the point of the thread. The real issue is legislating from the bench. We have a series of checks and balances for a reason. It's up to Legislative branch to make laws, not the Judiciary. The Legislative branch is accountable to the people.
You still didn't address the point of my post. Who chooses who the "rational people" are? They may not always be the people you like.
The will of the people, in the Arizona case, was to enforce existing laws. If the will of the people is going to be ignored, then change the laws they want upheld. The slavery example doesn't fit.
"Marriage" persay, should be a religious thing. Strictly religious. A civil union should be available to any two people that request it, with every right and privilage that goes with it. It's fear and semantics that is the real enemy of this happening. Plus people's twist on what "God" wants.
Political correctness rules. With that said, I think two people who love each other should be allowed to marry. I don't think the government should mettle in marriage at all. I am worried, however, that we will see a rash of lawsuits by gay couples against churches who refuse to marry them. I think this walks a very fine line between church and state.
