Now hold on there... [Updated 3/15]

Judge strikes down California gay marriage ban.

The California judge based this ruling on his opinion that state laws defining marriage as between a man and a woman are unconstitutional. Of course, as to the fact that these laws were unnecessary ten years ago, the judge was silent.

My opinion of judges in general is plummeting rapidly. Thanks to judges in Massachusetts, there is no room to negotiate. They have reduced the gay marriage debate to an either/or proposition. We really don't need another national debate as acrimonious as the abortion debate. And thanks to the judges, we are getting it anyway.

Look, I am not a fan of gay marriage. I do not see the need to change a several thousand-years-old tradition on the whim of a relative few. But that is not relevant.

More importantly, I'm willing to put it up to a vote - and willing to risk losing. I do not like the idea of having judges, far removed from accountability from the public, being able to so easily turn over such social fundamentals as marriage. That is too much power in the hands of too few. If we must go through with this - if there is no other avenue, no other way - then let us vote on it. Let us all have our say.

Update:

I want to clarify one point - it is the means by which the advocates of gay marriage are working that bothers me more than anything. If they sought to install gay marriage by seeking a referendum or by working through Congress or the state legislatures, I wouldn't like it but I could live with it. But imposing their views by legal fiat is not right - and in my opinion, undemocratic.

Interestingly enough, Justice Antonin Scalia yesterday had something to say about judicial activism regarding the Supreme Court's recent death penalty ruling:

In a 35-minute speech Monday, Scalia said unelected judges have no place deciding issues such as abortion and the death penalty. The court's 5-4 ruling March 1 to outlaw the juvenile death penalty based on "evolving notions of decency" was simply a mask for the personal policy preferences of the five-member majority, he said.

"If you think aficionados of a living Constitution want to bring you flexibility, think again," Scalia told an audience at the Woodrow Wilson Center, a Washington think tank. "You think the death penalty is a good idea? Persuade your fellow citizens to adopt it. You want a right to abortion? Persuade your fellow citizens and enact it. That's flexibility."

"Why in the world would you have it interpreted by nine lawyers?"

Let us or our elected representatives vote.