Your Sept. 2 editorial "A step back" was predictable. Why do we always know the "answer" The N&O will propose? Why not surprise us just once?

But let's make three things quickly clear. First, the "rising tide" for gay marriage is a tide consisting primarily of a few judges imposing their views on state constitutions that said nothing on the subject. As I recall the facts, the "rising tide" of the public has been in virtually every statewide vote to reject gay marriage - even in left coast California.

Second, reliance on state laws that the editorial notes here have been "100 percent effective" is meaningless - and you know better. The states adopting gay marriage by judicial fiat have invalidated precisely such laws. Thus the very reason for an amendment.

Third, the ultimate effect of The N&O's position is that it's OK for judges to "amend" the constitution and define marriage as they wish - by construing broad constitutional language - but dangerous, reactionary and hostile to "rights" for citizens to amend their constitution to reflect their views. I guess rule by oligarchy - the elite "wise" people (judges) - is preferable to democratic processes where the people speak.

Lynn Buzzard

Buies Creek

The writer is a law professor at Campbell University.