> Even in places that re known as being very liberal, like California, half the population regularly votes against gay marriage and marijuana legalization.

First, California is only very liberal in certain places. It is very conservative in others (the Central Valley)

Second, gay marriage opposition had a huge campaign by a religious organization. That religious organization should have been fined heavily or lost its tax exemption for doing so.

Third, it takes time for the attitudes about things like marijuana legalization to shift. That moment was, in fact, the last moment when the legalization opponents could have won. And they were backed by large amounts of money being thrown around by things like the alcohol lobby who are deathly afraid of legalization affecting their profits (they are correct).

I think that someone who thinks democracy cramps his style has no business advising the president.

The president isn't elected via democracy. It seems like congresspeople should be most concerned with democracy.

The electoral college is weighted representative democracy as opposed to a direct vote. It's clumsy but still reflects the popular vote.

It's actually unequally-weighted doubly indirect representation with structural incentives (but no guarantee) for the representatives actually tasked with choosing the voting representatives to both delegated that task to the citizenry and a separate set of incentives and abide by the results and a separate set of incentives (and, again, no guarantee) for the set of voting representatives to vote in accordance with the preferences expressed by the voters by whom they were elected.

And neither of those sets of incentives is, unlike the doubly-indirect structure itself, part of the federal Constitution; they are both much more recent federal statute and state law incentives.

Yah, so like I said it's clumsy.

The most recent presidential election suggests otherwise.

And what makes you think you are universally and undeniably right if you support homosexuality and marijuana?

Don't believe it has to do with being "universally and undeniably right" but rather freedom to have gay marriage and marijuana legalization.

Nothing to be "correct" about.

Where do we draw the line? If homosexuality, why not zoophilia? If marijuana, why not cocaine?

> If homosexuality, why not zoophilia?

Because animals are not able to give consent, nor are they capable of the thinking required to do so. Suggesting that homosexuality and zoophilia are two points on the same line is a very tired and inaccurate point to try to make.

> If marijuana, why not cocaine?

Actually a fair question. There's an interesting line of thought in legalising all drugs to bring them out into the open.