>>
>>Democracies with Constitutions are distasteful at times. Because they protect everyone's rights, not just the majority's. And in this case, to my knowledge, it was not a criminal law that was at issue but some regulation of some school board.
>>People are working hard behind the scenes to overturn "gay marriage" in Canada, and it looks like they'll get their way eventually, some time in the next few years. So there are ways when people really want, to bring about change.
>
>Not when people like you are content to relinquish your responsibilities to the "powers that be". The supreme court are not elected by us. Personally I'd rather have the ability to vote on every issue than to let people I neither elected, nor have any ability to have ejected decide how things should be for me. Democracy by proxy is too close to dictatorship for me.

Well your way - a vote on everything - simply can't work in a Constitutional democracy that protects INDIVIDUAL'S rights because it would mean the majority IMPOSING its ways on everything.

I'm not "relinquishing responsibility", I'm accepting that the Supreme Court is an integral part of the system we live in. I have plenty to say about exploiting people in Communist countries or poor countries, about the environment, about corporate greed, about stupid laws (which the Supreme Court only interpret, in the context of the Constitution), the variable price of gasoline and tons of other things. In my opinion far too many have "relinquished responsibility" on those issues, trusting politicians who are in the pockets of corporations and corporations to make law/regulation when no such trust is deserved.
In the overall scheme of things gay marriage and Sikh students carrying knives are miniscule issues, yet they get all the attention. Something is seriously wrong with that!