"Bob Terwilliger" > wrote in message
>
> If that were the case, why wouldn't the VOTERS have been the ones
> approving
> *** marriage, rather than the state supreme court? Sounds to me like the
> state is being forced in a direction that the voters don't want to go.
> (But
> since voters can often make stupid decisions, that's not necessarily a bad
> thing.)

The state constitution is the constitution. The supreme court interprets the
meaning if it is questioned. If voters want some other interpretation they
have to vote to amend it. Does not matter what voters want today, it is
what the law says.