I Couldn't Have Said it Better MyselfA friend left a comment on my Facebook about the gay marriage vote in CA (I've had a mini-discussion going on after I updated my status with my devastation about the vote).
Here's what she said: "Being Constitutional has nothing to do with the popular vote. States should not be able to make laws that restrict the pursuit of happiness."
It's a very good point. If being Constitutional means something is an inalienable freedom, right or benefit, how can we then change the Constitution to say otherwise? Semantically it makes sense, but semantics aren't what matters here.
Basically we're not just changing the Constitution to make gay marriages illegal, we're essentially changing the very meaning of the Constitution itself. Constitution is made to give people rights...inalienable rights to freedom, happiness, etc. Changing that on the whim of popular sentiment of the time erodes that very foundation of the Constitution, and those rights themselves. Now our Constitution will be come a list of whims of the populace, not a document expressing the birth right Americans have to freedom. Conservatives (real conservatives) should see that.