There is not, no matter how many way you can twist the words, a guarantee for gay “marriage”. Nor is there one for guaranteeing access to abortion but that’s for another day.

That said, the issues at stake are the Constitutional guarantees to freedom of religion and the equal protection of the laws, which claims gay citizens have a right to as much as any other citizens.

Suppose the majority of the people of California had coalesced to ban fire-arms. Would you then call the judges obstructionist for observing that in a Constitutional democracy there are limits to the power of the majority, that those limits are set by the Constitution, and that the majority cannot transgress those limits?

This is a particularly interesting question because so very often the right to bear firearms is tied in a Jeffersonian way (or so I understand) to firearms being the individual’s last defense against a government turned tyrannical, which government in the United States would, short of total usurpation, become tyrannical only in pursuing the will of a democratic majority.

Yet now a democratic majority is usurping the Constitution’s guarantees to freedom of religion and equal protection, which really are among the core guarantees that the firearm might be needed to protect, and from those so concerned about the second amendment, nary a peep.

At the moment, we have a tide of tyranny under way against individuals and their freedoms. If the judges, charged with the defense of the Constitution and the rights of individual, are not to do their job, is it the role of the individuals and our firearms?

It seems to me there is a knee-jerk response among some conservatives to oppose only those judicial actions that defend the rights of others.