Okay... Thanks for that, but I still don't quite get it. Like, it shouldn't have to do with judges distorting the will of the people. What I understand from the legal ruling itself is not about what a majority wants. It is that they are saying they do not find that the constitution says gay marriage is wrong. And to me, that's consistent with someone saying we need to amend the constitution to MAKE it illegal. Do you see my point? I mean, does it make sense? It seems like if we argue that the judges are wrong and so that gay marriage is against the constitution, then we can't turn around and say that we need to add something to the constitution so that it says gay marriage is wrong.
This seems so obvious to me that I know must be simple. :)