I don’t get your beef with the headline. It seems pretty accurate. One day gay marriage is illegal in Iowa. Then some activist judges make a ruling. The next day gays are rushing to wedding chapels to get legally “married”. Gay marriage wouldn’t be legal without the actions of these judges. Where am I wrong here and what would your headline be for this article? Oh, and another thing: I hope all three of them get canned.
It’s still not legal. Judges can’t make laws. Judges can’t write constitutions. Judges can’t amend constitutions.
The problem with the headline is not merely semantic. It goes to whether or not we are still a republic, or whether we are now some sort of judicial oligarchy.
Words mean things, and by using that language, we’re actually playing directly into the hands of those who think judges really do make law.
This is not some minor little beef.