1. I'm against the gay rights agenda, and resent the civil rights assault.
2. Achieving their gains through the courts is the worst way because it manipulates our democracy. Also, that none of us (democrats) would want Conservative judges voting to make abortion illegal because the unborn suddenly had human rights.
All constitutional principles are enforceable against the majority. Irrespective of the politics. That is the point of having a constitution.
I whole-heartedly agree with that ideal.
The point is, this is an abstraction from the minds of judges. They are being political.
They are taking an idea from today and elevating it to a constitutional principle.
Similar to the S.C. with the Heller gun case. They are doing the same thing from the right.
Both cases happen to go against the majority.
D.C. voters want a ban on guns.
I don't believe in an individual right to carry a gun. And even if I did, it would be subject to very many restrictions so as to make it pretty much meaningless.
Both of these are cases where judges are taking the vote away from people.
I happen to disagree with both of them.
I support gun control.
I'm against gay rights.
But even with Roe v. Wade.
I support abortion rights, but think it should be in the political arena. Again, even if I think that it would be unconstitutional to ban every single abortion, it certainly should not be up to judges to define the parameters.