But, I believe William was asking when any minority was granted their rights via a “direct” vote of the people.

For example, in California the legislature “TWICE” passed same-gender marriage legislation and it was Governnor Schwarzenegger that vetoed both attempts. Deferring the matter to the Supreme Court and/or voters to resolve. But the legislature are the voters, so then what, Mr. Governor!

In other words, in all of my examples the “people” did not cast a direct vote on extending rights to affected minorities.

Because if such a thing had happened, where there was a ballot proposition asking “Should the slaves be freed?” Yes/No, then you would have seen a radical outcome in certain parts of our country. Then what would people say, “What can we do!? It’s the WILL of the people! The people have directly spoken!”

People seem to forget, and schools seem to be doing a poor job of teaching our citizens, that the United States of America is NOT a pure democracy.

The era of slavery in the United States was not terminated by a popular vote of the majority.

The right of women to vote was not granted by a popular vote of the majority.

The right for couples of mixed races to marry was not granted by a popular vote of the majority.

The right for people of color to have full access to all of the same legal rights as white people was not granted by a popular vote of the majority.

So is that how it’s going to be from now on? Don’t piss off the majority because otherwise they’ll take away your rights?

Huh.

Tell me something. If we assume that the majority is heterosexual (it is, by 90+ percent), why is it up to that same majority to decide what rights and privileges are good enough for gays and lesbians?

Why is it up to the heterosexual to say: “Well OK, we’ll allow you to have sex, but you can’t get married” and then, “Well, OK, you can have civil unions, but not marriage”

Who are you to tell anyone else whether they have a real marriage or not? Why don’t we give everyone the same rights so that nobody has to feel disadvantaged?

What other minority has had to fight until their equality was recognised by popular vote?

But clear as that is, I would still prefer for it to be carried out legislatively, as has happened in Spain. It would expose the social conservatives for what they are to have them complain of the arrogance of elected representatives and the voters. And liberals could complain of activist judges overriding legislatures in cases like District of Columbia v. Heller.

It’ll happen well within a decade. Bill is wrong to say this year was the best of circumstances: it is a bad time for Republicans, but the initiative was not tied in voters’ minds to the party. (It is always wise to keep your cause separate of political fortunes.) As others have said, Obama may well have unwittingly damaged it by bringing out ethnic minorities that vote Democrat but are still conservative. The wording surely did not mean a difference of 10 percentage points.

After all, that IS the Christian way!

hopefully nobody thinks I am serious : )

“Bill- saying that gay marriage is not a right outlined in the constitution is a red herring. The constitution does not enumerate rights one by one.”

Actually it DOES enumerate many rights: free speech, religion, press, assembly, guns, search and seizure, property takings, trial by jury, etc..

Of course, the court has utterly revised the original meaning of these rights but they are enumerated.

However, most of the concerns of the founders expressed in the bill of rights and subsequent amendments are not of much concern in today’s modern society so it would be very difficult for states to pass unconstitutional laws (according to original intent) today because the people would never support those laws. Thus, from my view, the Supreme Court really shouldn’t have much to do.

“In fact, if we only considered rights those activities that were expressley listed in the constitution, we wouldn’t have the right to do much. Driving, surfing the internet, even buying a snack certainly aren’t rights according to the definition of rights you have come up with. That doesn’t mean, of course, that we can decide that minority groups can or can’t participate in these events thanks to the constitution (state or federal) and it’s equal protection and due process stipulations.”

Actually none of the things you describe are constitutional rights. Why does everyone insist that all these rights exist that don’t exist?

In fact, some people are surprised to find out that VOTING is not even a constitutional right… it is left to states. The constitution simply forbids them from discriminating on gender, age (over 18), and race but they can otherwise forbid other groups from voting. I am not saying today’s court would allow that… only that THAT is what the constitution says.