Replies

The actual question is how can a judge legitimately go against the will of the people evidenced by history,

This gets into the debate of the fine line between a democracy and a mob rule/rule of the many over the few.

Now I will agree with you that this is the wrong way to go about it, the courts should not be used to make law. But this could be argued under the "pursuit of happiness" part of the "Declarion of Independance".

But I want your input, on this issue, at what point in your mind would it become the 'will of the people'; At the state government? At the ballot box as a referendom? Or do you have another gauge you use to measure the 'will of the people', if so, name the gauge you use?

The historical gauge I would use would be that will of the people is eventually always evidenced by what is actually enacted and or recognized by the people. The methods and locales of how and where the will is established may vary up to and including overthrow "legally" and or "illegally" an illegitimate government and or illegitimate government institution e.g. the American revolution and or civil war are examples.

In a nutshell -the judicial activists can only go so far and impose so much -history shows that push will come to shove IF the issue is one that the people will of great import.

The remedy sought always begins legally and within civil construct BUT ultimately will abridge that which is considered and determined illegitimate obstacle. This determination is again up to the people...

In a nutshell -your question is an old one in that a difference between democracy and mob rule (legitimate and illegitimate discourse) is that of perspective and the legitimate perspective is determined by who wields political power. Anyone familiar with politics understand that consensus is power...

The United States Supreme Court:

"Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices..."
[Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 8 Otto 145, 24 L. Ed. 244 (1878).]
See also: Late Corporation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. United States, 136 U.S. 1, 10 S.Ct. 792, 34 L. Ed. 478 (1890). Revised as 140 U.S. 665, 11 S.Ct. 884, 35 L. Ed. 592 (1891).

Marriage is a public act... regulated by statutory license.

Marriage is a religious "rite," not a civil "right;" with a secular standard of human reproductive biology.

Driving, marriage, legal and medical practices are not enumerated rights; they are privileged practices that require statutory license.

Nothing that requires a license is a right.