California voters were against homosexual marriage, and used their voting muscle to stop it. But the liberals got the courts to overturn their vote. What exactly are voters supposed to do?
What can voters do? Read the Constitution! (RTFM). Noting that the federal Constitution, including amendments, is under 30 pages, voters can get themselves up to speed with the Constitution's division of federal and state government powers and stop letting other people make their decisions for them.
I suspect that probably most California voters are constitutonally ignorant and consequently don't understand their 10th Amendment powers. So Calfornia voters can either wise up or get swallowed by social Darwinism like Jersey voters.
I should have expanded on constitutional problems with so-called gay rights in my previous post. Let me explain.
What pro-gay activist justices and judges don't want voters to know about the so-called constitutionality of gay rights is the following. Not only have the states never amended the Constitution to expressly protect so-called gay rights, but the Founding States had made the 10th Amendment to clarify that the Constitution's silence about issues like gay rights means that it is up to the individual states, ultimately a state's voters, to decide yes or no to such issues.
But as a consequence of Calforinia citizens probably not knowing their constitutional protections, activist justices and judges have so far gotten away with using a PC interpretation of the equal protections clause of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment to protect constitutionally unprotected gay rights.
In fact, pro-gay activist justices and judges probably don't want citizens to know that the Supreme Court had previously clarified in Minor v. Happersett that the 14th Amendment did not add to existing constituitional protections regardless of PC interpretations of the 14th Amendment's equal protections clause.
"3. The right of suffrage was not necessarily one of the privileges or immunities of citizenship before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, and that amendment does not add to these privileges and immunities. It simply furnishes additional guaranty for the protection of such as the citizen already had. (emphasis added)" --Minor v. Happersett, 1984.
And the only right that the states have amended the Constitution to expressly protect on the basis is sex is voting rights as evidenced by the 19th Amendment.
In fact, the states are free to make laws which discriminate on the basis of any criterion which the states have not amended the Constitution to expressly protect. Regarding such laws, the 14th Amendment's equal protections clause essentially requires the states to either discriminate against equally, or favor equally, concerning everybody affected by that criterion imo.
Again, Jersey and California voters can take a couple of hours to get themselves up to speed on the Constitution and case precedent relevant to constitutionally unprotected "gay rights," or they deserve to be swallowed by social Darwinism imo.
“What exactly are voters supposed to do?”
With John Roberts and Anthony Kennedy, not one damn thing. They WILL ALWAYS VOTE with the sodomites. Um, I wonder why?
I think we know the answer.