Majority Rule vs. Minority Rights

Signing of the Constitution of the U.S.

I hear people claiming to be champions of the Constitution protesting how an "activist" judge could singlehandedly strike down the results of a California referendum banning gay marriage.  After all, how could a judge overrule the will of the people?  The attempt to open a Muslim community center less than two blocks from Ground Zero doesn't seem to be winning any popularity contest either.  Isn't majority rule what our democracy is all about?  First, the USA is a republic, not a democracy in the strict sense of the word.  The framers of the Constitution were brilliant in setting up checks and balances designed to protect the rights of groups and individuals even when they clash with the opinion of a majority or plurality.  If we took every decision purely by the electorate, many reforms we take for granted today would never have come to pass.  In the early sixties, southern segregationist governors such as Alabama's George Wallace and Georgia's Lester Maddox had the will of the majority on their side when they tried to block civil rights for African Americans.  Did that make them right?   Perhaps the federal government is a bit ahead of the curve when it goes against what local majorities are ready and willing to accept.  If so, many politicians looking for votes and talking heads seeking ratings will cast their lots with the ones trying to block a lower Manhattan mosque or California gay marriage.   President Obama has been playing a delicate balancing act himself since taking office, and these issues are no exceptions.  The generational shift increasingly accepting gay marriage may eventually make it the will of the majority anyway.  In regard to the proposed mosque, I agree with Mayor Bloomberg that it would be a sad day for America if the community rejects it because of the horrible thing 19 terrorists did on 9/11.