I must admit I have conflicting viewpoints over the California Supreme Court's recent decision allowing for gay marriage in the Golden State. And it's not some sort of moral opposition to the concept of gay marriage....part of me harkens to the old line that I'm for gay marriage because gay men should be miserable like the rest of us. Seriously, though I'm not one of these people who has a reflexive negative view on the topic.
My split personality on this comes out of my own libertarian point of view. On one hand, if it doesn't cost me money, hurt me or my family or infringe on me....have it. On the other hand, the voters in CA via referendum voted to ban gay marriage in a fair election and the almighty judges in black who always think they are so much smarter than everyone else overturned the will of the voters.
Hmmm, quite the conundrum. After all, no one wants tyranny by the majority and hence referendums should not be used to take rights away from any group in particular. However, gay marriage is a legitimate open issue and cleary CA voters spoke for what they wanted. Where is the appreciation on the courts behalf for the will of the people.
OK, folks. I am officially conflicted on this. Which side is anti-liberty here?