My post wasn't framed that way, James, or intended the way some see it here. Everyone knows courts interpret and rule on bills and laws. It has more relevance in the United States where stacking and vetting is common discourse, and relatively little of it here in Canada.
You may agree that a constant (and tiresome) refrain from me is: like it or not, laws are democratic expressions of the people from their legislatures. If you don't like Obama and McCain as your president and senator, suck it up, they were chosen by pluralities and majorities!
Aware as any interested in public affairs, I applied the same sentiment to three-quarters of US states who offer gay marriage, only realizing after Jim H's message that those states were dragooned into observing a constitutional right, reminiscent but much more benign than the struggle for civil rights.
On your point of judicial activism and media involvement advancing gay rights, it's the same dynamic that advances and stops everything when persons say that's not right according to what's written in our most authoritative rule book on how we're to govern ourselves, and take it to the Supreme Court
I understand why some saw my comment as bullshit. Any error on my part, however, was ascribing to those states a willingness to accommodate a sacred constitutional right recognized years ago by Canada and Europe. I'm in Jim H's debt for straightening me out.
