The linked post is from Huffington Gay Voices, but the source really isn’t important (except that you should read it!) We have seen opponents of LGBTQ Rights and especially same-sex marriage use this type of language over and over again. Here in Pennsylvania where I live, Diane Gramley of the American Family Association of Pa (AFAPA) used the same tactic, although far less controversial verbiage recently. Here is Gramley’s quote: (bolded for emphasis is mine)

“Pennsylvanians who understand what real marriage is are outraged that an unelected, activist judge has twisted the Constitution into something unrecognizable,”

And here is the Florida quote by Eladio Armesto, Chairman of Florida Democratic League:

The people of FL have voted. It is up to Judge Zabel to respect that vote, uphold her oath of office and uphold the constitution. This is nothing more than a judicial lynching of the people of FL.

Both individuals suggest that the vote of the people trumps all else, which is not the way it works in the United States, no matter how much these homophobes wish it did. We live in a Constitutional Democracy. Here is what is meant by a Constitutional Democracy:

In a CONSTITUTIONAL DEMOCRACY the authority of the majority is limited by legal and institutional means so that the rights of individuals and minorities are respected. This is the form of democracy practiced in Germany, Israel, Japan, the United States, and other countries.

And the tool used to determine rights and protections is the US Constitution. In a Constitutional Democracy like ours, there is a checks and balance system, where the Judiciary acts as the method of checking the legislative branch  as well as the State Constitutions. The US Constitution always takes precedence.

In the case of Pennsylvania, the Federal Judge ruled that a law passed by the Pennsylvania Legislature violates the US Constitution.  In the case of Florida, the State’s constitution was amended to ban same-sex marriage, and this amendment to the Florida Constitution has been determined to be unconstitutional based on the US Constitution.

People can’t simply vote in anything they want, if that thing they want violates other’s rights. The minorities rights are protected in a Constitutional Democracy.

Now, a judge doesn’t have the final word on any dispute. The final decision resides with the US supreme Court, and every case can, through the appeals process make it’s way to the US Supreme Court. That way, the Will of the People, and the full protection of the US Constitution is afforded to all. (No one gets lynched in other words.) In the case of Pennsylvania, the Governor made a decision that the State would not appeal the judge’s ruling believing that the State didn’t have a case that would win at the next level of appeal. Florida is still caught up in their appeals process, however some far right homophobes are calling for the Florida Attorney General to step down feeling that he isn’t doing enough to fight to keep their ban in place.

The AFAPA needs to take a cue from Florida. Rather than making false claims about a judge doing the judge’s job, their real beef is with Governor Corbett. The Governor made a reasoned decision that the State couldn’t make a case to overturn the judge’s ruling. In other words, Corbett agreed that the state law was unconstitutional. One could argue that the Governor should, under any circumstance appeal any decision found against the State to adequately give voice to the voters.  But at some point, all this does is cost the tax payers a ton of money and accomplishes nothing. Like many individuals and groups across Pennsylvania, I appreciate the Governor, not wasting tax dollars to fight a case he couldn’t win.

The bottom line is that the far right is trying to use weird ideas about voting as if simply because people vote, nothing else matters, and that’s hogwash. Everything from legislation to voter determined state constitution changes must still all be constitutional according the US Constitution. Ou r Judicial system is the tool by which constitutionality is determined. In every case where a same-sex marriage ban has been overturned, this basic process- the most basic process of a Constitutional Democracy has been followed.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nadine-smith/opponent-of-marriage-equality_b_5556154.html