同性婚姻应该由精英拍板还是顺应民意？

西方的政客、律师、technocracs 、学者等当然认为这是他们的权利，就像刚发生的希腊财政困扰，希腊总理将财务危机的决定权交给人民投票，在欧联精英中被视为大逆不道的事。在美国，律师为整个国家决定了，不管他们的理据是怎样离开历史的解释。在英国，由政客决定了。现在到了澳洲，保守的政府却希望由人民投票表决，原因也简单，他们有很多的议席上次大选从反对党赢过来的，而选区中移民、天主教、东正教和回教徒等选民有决定性的影响。得罪了这一批选民，下次的政府就没有机会了。西方progressive 的精英，走的路线不只越来越怪，而且越来越专制。

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/key-marginal-seat-liberals-oppose-same-sex-marriage-changes/story-fn59niix-1227484227052


澳洲ABC访问了一个来自女同志家庭的女士，她坚持儿童应有的权利，就是能够和父与母一起生活的权利：
http://www.virtueonline.org/speaking-truth-homosexual-marriage-and-parenting

好一位真诚友善的女生：
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-08-12/interview-katy-faust-who-serves-on-the-academic/6693296

而同性婚姻倡导者欠缺了应有的解释：儿童能够与父母一起生活的权利：
http://www.theage.com.au/comment/gay-marriage-advocates-have-more-explaining-to-do-20150813-giyban.html


更有什者，认为同性婚姻运动最终的目的是完全破坏婚姻制度，并且使基督教非法：
http://www.charismanews.com/opinion/clarion-call/51062-gay-activist-james-dobson-was-right-about-our-evil-intentions

请看看高等法院9个人中其中比较中肯的评论：
Judges are selected precisely for their skill as lawyers; whether they reflect the policy views of a particular constituency is not (or should not be) relevant. Not surprisingly then, the Federal Judiciary is hardly a cross-section of America. Take, for example, this Court, which consists of only nine men and women, all of them successful lawyers who studied at Harvard or Yale Law School. Four of the nine are natives of New York City. Eight of them grew up in east- and west-coast States. Only one hails from the vast expanse in-between. Not a single Southwesterner or even, to tell the truth, a genuine Westerner (California does not count). Not a single evangelical Christian (a group that comprises about one quarter of Americans), or even a Protestant of any denomination. The strikingly unrepresentative character of the body voting on today’s social upheaval would be irrelevant if they were functioning as judges, answering the legal question whether the American people had ever ratified a constitutional provision that was understood to proscribe the traditional definition of marriage. But of course the Justices in today’s majority are not voting on that basis; they say they are not. And to allow the policy question of same-sex marriage to be considered and resolved by a select, patrician, highly unrepresentative panel of nine is to violate a principle even more fundamental than no taxation without representation: no social transformation without representation… - See more at: http://www.mercatornet.com/conjugality/view/scalia-on-same-sex-marriage
                                    ---- Late Justice Antonin Scalia 



图片来自The Australian