The Arrogance Continues

You have to hand it to the four California state supreme court justices who changed the definition of marriage
It is not enough that they have somehow found a "right" for same sex marriage but do not want to really let the voters decide on whether or not that it was the right decision http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-marriage5-2008jun05,0,2121301.story.
The Not-So Fab Four, led by chief justice Ronald George and followed by justices Joyce Kennard, Kathryn Werdegar and Carlos Moreno refused to put a stay on their decision until after the November election in which the issue will be voted on by the people of California.
Why is it important?
Because by not issuing a stay, as of Tuesday. June 17, same-sex couples can apply for marriage licences at the local county clerks office.
And, if the voters overturn the court's decision, on Wednesday, November 5, these marriages will not be recognized. Actually, it is more than likely that the marriages will be in legal limbo.
Because the vote is on a constitutional amendment, if it passes there can be no legal challenge.
It will be that in the state of California legal marriage will be recognized as between one man and one woman.
It is clear that the court and the Not-So Fab Four are going out of their way to make sure that marriages take place before the vote. Because one of the ways that those opposed to the amendment will make their case is that the marriages will have been going on and that it would be wrong to vote for a constitutional amendment that would null and void the marriages.
Being that the original decision showed deep divisions on the court and the vote was only 4-3, the court should have issued the stay, recognizing that this is an issue that has to be decided by voters.
But, no, these four know better. They would rather humiliate themselves by letting their flawed ruling go through and bring a lot of potential unnecessary sadness to those who will have gone through and gotten married only to have voters reject the courts arrogant decision.
Issues like this can not and should not be decided by courts. One of the dissenters of the original decision, Carol Corrigan, got it right. She wrote that she personally favors same-sex marriage, but that the voters and or the legislature must decide the issue, not the courts.
It is too bad that four of her arrogant colleagues do not get that.
The voters will decide on November 3 and I wonder if the same arrogant four will be able to talk away how their arrogance in voting for redefining marriage.