This.
Normally I don't really understand the "Dominos" comparison, but considering how much progress has been made, the hate is falling, and soon, may be gone, though that may be wishful thinking, a world without hate, is a great world indeed.
The belief that states have the right to define marriage does not per se mean that one is a hateful person. That is a point worth keeping in mind.
The will of the people activists in black robes prevails again. The people via their reps banned it.
No, that's not true either. Whether you agree with Judge Friedman's opinion or disagree, he reached a logical conclusion by applying his finding of the facts with the case law. There can certainly be disagreements about his conclusion that the MMA fails the rational basis test (although the state did a thoroughly horrible job of attempting to prove that), but it is unfair and untrue to claim that this was the result of judicial activism. Have you actually read the opinion?
The will of the people activists in black robes prevails again. The people via their reps banned it.
And the people, via their courts, repealed it.I disagree with that as well. "The people" really didn't do anything when we're talking about a federal judge who was appointed 25 years ago. I would honestly be surprised if there was one person out there who voted for Reagan out of an expectancy that Friedman would be appointed.
The will of the people activists in black robes prevails again. The people via their reps banned it.
And the people, via their courts, repealed it.
The will of the people in 2014 matters more than the will of the people in 2004. And upholding the U.S. constitution trumps both.
Not quite. Judges are not there to express the will of the people, legislatures are. Some of our worst decisions have come about because of judges trying to impose their view of the current will of the people as inviolable precedent. It's all good and well to apply Kennedy's reasoning in Windsor to these bans. But they should be doing it regardless of the will of the people being in favor of or in opposition to that being done. So while your latter two sentences are spot on, I find fault with your first.
I am not suggesting that courts should serve the will of the people. I am suggesting that the courts should serve the people. And that is precisely what they did in this scenario by protecting the constitutional rights of those challenging the law. People brought this issue to the courts.
I know you just wanted to make a point, but don't put words into my mouth.
"People" certainly brought this issue to the courts, but I fail to see how "the people" did anything here.
