People should never be able to vote on the rights of others.
This has recently come to renewed importance in the wake of California's Proposition 8 banning same-sex marriage in a predominately liberal state. Marriage in the United States is a legal definition, more than a religious one, because being married in a church alone is not sufficient to be considered "married" by the federal government since you still must submit documentation proving and ratifying your marriage. Therefore, this debate which ostensibly appears to be a separation of Church and State issue is to me instead a Constitutional issue: should society as a whole be able to decide for which rights someone is eligible?
My answer is no. By opening up the discussion of a right to the voting public, the state has sanctioned a tyranny of the majority. Instead of discussing the nature of marriage in the United States in a voting body to determine WHAT it actually meant, we put the issue before voters who were asked to choose whether others would have rights based upon personal prejudices. I need to remind you that, if this were the method of solving issues relating to the struggle for Civil Rights in the African-American communities, they would have achieved equal status under the law much later, if at all, in many places. the founding fathers discussed regularly tyranny of the majority, and it was clear it was a major concern as the US began to shape itself into a new republic. By this point in time, one may have thought that we would have come to understand that issues of rights are never to be decided by the voters, as all people are guaranteed them FUNDAMENTALLY by the Constitution. California's Prop. 8 should therefore serve as a wake-up call, regardless of your opinions on the nature of what is marriage because in that very liberal state, the electoral process was used to deprive people of rights already given them by the courts, the apparent watchdogs of constitutionality.