>>SNIP
>>>And I think this year election, at least in the U.S., is a good example of your theory.
>>>
>>>We had practially all the main stream media bashing Bush. We had renegade courts granting wedding licenses to same sex couples with no regard to what the law states.
>>
>>Dean,
>>I think you're misunderstanding what those "renegade courts" were doing. They were upholding the law as it was written and definitely not ignoring the law.
>>
>>It's interesting to me that states with 'gay marriage' plebescites ALL had them agreed, some even with very draconian measures in them. This is a prime example of the "tyranny of the masses" that your founding fathers were so concerned about preventing! It now becomes impossible, in those states at least once enacted, for marriage-minded gays to pursue their own "life, liberty and HAPPINESS". The masses have denied them that right! How good is that??? I suppose it's perfectly fine when it only involves OTHER PEOPLE. Now lets see some state pass a law outlawing the ownership and possession of hand guns and see what happens!
>>
>>cheers
>
>Ok here we go again..... :)
>
>I personally don't have a problem with gay marriage. I neither condone or condemn.... But I don't appreciate it when a small group trys to force it down my throat. And if one day it is passed, I'll accept it.
>
>I think eventually legal same sex marriage will happen. But people naturally don't like it shoved down their throat. I think what few court did hurt the gay/lesbian cause and delayed what may have happened sooner. I think the 11 "Anti" gay marriage vote happened out of anger. Anger against some left wing courts pushing their agenda without having the "masses" having a say.

Well at least you agree (I think) that it wasn't "renegade courts"! And that was my main point.
But since we're here < s > ...

*ANY* minority, on *ANY* issues, is going to get 'voted down' - just look at the history of civil rights in the southern states. And that is precisely what "tyranny of the majority" refers to. The majority will always act to protect their own interests regardless of the impact on some persons or groups. And this is perfectly fine - that's "democracy", EXCEPT when it impacts someone's personal freedoms as guaranteed by the (everyone's) Consitiution.

So the question is, HOW would gays ever get the right to marry except by court rulings?????? How did civil rights become a reality (still in progress, but well under way) - court rulings! Court rulings led to a Federal Law then court challenges by numerous states and such upheld that law.

There's no way that there will ever be a law passed by Congress that will sanction gay marriage, at least not in our lifetimes. It will take the courts to uphold personal "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" for gays. The system really allows no other way.

cheers