Why were the uninformed masses given a say in the legality of marriage between two adults?

But the politicians don't trust the public to vote on most other issues, eg ending prohibition, ending the war etc. Why were the uninformed masses given a say in the legality of marriage between two adults?
Ahh... democracy: two lions and a sheep deciding what's for dinner.Why were the uninformed masses given a say in the legality of marriage between two adults?
The same reason that the uninformed masses voted in a 2 year freshman senator into the White House, 2 of which were spent on the campaign trail.





Think about it... the most powerful position in the World was just awarded to a man who believes that our constitution is unconstitutional and whose only qualification is that he is an excellent public speaker.





So how can you wonder why America, the uninformed, would vote against two men or two women getting married?
Pro or con on Prop 8, the California Constitution allows, by initiative vote of the People, the ability to enact legislation or to ';amend'; the Constitution.





It does not allow such an initiative to ';revise'; the Constitution. that is reserved to 2 procedures - either pass both Houses by 2/3 vote and then a vote of the people, or a vote of the people to have a Constitutional Convention followed by a vote of the people on the results of the Convention.





This is how it has been since 1911.





No one argues that, IIRC there are 500 or so Amendments thus passed.





The issue before the courts now, as it has been in other disputed initiatives, is, is this Proposition 8 properly an Amendment, in which case it is valid, or is it a Revision, in which case it is NOT valid, because it will have been improperly enacted.





There is no dispute that this is the situation right now.





It will be for the courts to decide.





I have outlined the arguments for Revision and for this summer's related case identifying the case for right to same sex marriage here (best answer):





http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;鈥?/a>





The filings in favor of Amendment are just coming in this afternoon, and I am scanning them now.





I will ignore except for entertainment purposes the one from a San Diego woman who claims to be the Messiah herself, and who presents a document from her psychiatrist as evidence thereof.





The rest, on initial reading, seem to deliberately and dismissively ignore Petitioner's (pro-Revision) argument of Due Process claims as the basis for a revision.





There are some procedural claims, in particular as to whether a stay should be denied or not pending a hearing, and if the Secretary of State should be allowed to certify the election and be dropped from the suits.





But there is little realistic dispute that there should be a prompt hearing, regardless of whether or not a stay is issued.





Instead, what I see form the Pro-Amendment claims are a recitation of the same set of cases as in the Pro-Revision filing, after all, there are limited cases that are related.





I see cherry picking of phrases that suit a purpose, probably in both sides, but I see little analysis and lots of hyperbole on the Amendment side.





I am not a lawyer, and I can't predict how either the request for a stay, or how a hearing will be decided by the Courts.





But I am following this closely, and I know it is still early, but I'd say from here, the Revision arguments look stronger because they anticipate and respond to the Amendment claims, while making a strong case that the Amendment side almost literally thumbs their nose at.
The majority should never be allowed to vote on the rights of minorities.





Most of the people are either Christians wack jobs who think it's their job to force THEIR religious beliefs on others. The rest of the people are homophobic and they saw this as a chance to take a cheap shot at homosexuals. It's very pathetic.
AMEN Frederik! If I could I would give you 10 Stars!





Why does Gay Marriage scare people? Some of the only reasons they want the right to marry is for legal and financial reasons. ';Civil Unions'; do have the same rights financially as Marriage. It is a nightmare! And it's not like you would be ';Redefining'; the term marriage. You just say marriage is between 2 people.
I am not an uninformed mass and didn't vote on gay marriage so you have no reason to insult everyone who doesn't agree with your warped world view.





This topic is so stupid it shouldn't have even been given space on the ballot.
It was a state constitution change. War and prohibition were FEDERAL changes.





Do some research - just a little bit - before posting.