The branches of the government are meant to do different things. The legislative is supposed to consider policy at length, to call in the experts and interested parties and finally to enact national policy. The executive is supposed to execute the policies enacted by the legislature.

And the judicial has the one-by-one job of dealing with individual litigants. When someone comes before the court and says the acts taken by the executive or the legislature exceeds their power because the actions infringe on constitutional rights, then the courts have to look into the question and decide.

Due process and equal protection requires that laws have a rational basis and be applied equally to all citizens situated alike. When classifying citizens for the purpose of treating them differently under the law is done without a rational basis, then the courts must protect the individuals.

In the case of homosexual rights, their vindication is not so much a revolution but rather a delayed realization of rights guaranteed in our founding and governing documents.

There is not doubt that hate, prejudice and legally sanctioned oppression prevented homosexuals from seeking to vindicate those rights in earlier generations and decades, but those horrors are hopefully past in our national history, allowing homosexuals to come to the courts and challenge the rationality of the remaining laws that persecute gays.

Sure it would be better if the legislature did its job and rationally evaluated policy and enacted law that accomplished the vindication of equal protection and due process for gays, but that doesn't disable the duty of the courts to evaluate every party's case on its merits.

I think we buy into the homophobes perspective when we accept that finally recognizing rights that have always been in the constitution is a revolution. The revolution happened twenty two decades ago. We are only now realizing and recognizing some of the inevitable benefits of it.