Round and round we go.

1. The will of the people is paramount.

2. If they so choose to legislate a concept of "morality" that is their sovereign right.

3. Unless it conflicts with our Constitution.

4. Which is so true, because we didn't have a constitution until the 1970s.

5. Which is how all those crappy things happened BEFORE 1970. The constitution and bill of rights just didn't exist to prevent them from happening.

But really, this started as an argument about 'activist' judges subverting the will of the people.

Could it - SHOCKING! - be that those 'activist' judges are, in an unexpected twist, actually acting as the controls against tyrrany you are so fond of citing that exist in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights?

6. Shall we have cake?