Could the same be said of Roe v. Wade?

More than 52 percent of Californians voted this week to change the state's constitution to define marriage as between a man and woman, reversing a state Supreme Court decision in May that made California the second U.S. state to allow gay couples to wed.

As of yesterday afternoon, more than 99 percent of the state's precincts had reported results. While some provisional ballots were still being counted, opponents acknowledged the ban had passed.

Proponents say the outcome shows that the law is ultimately determined by popular sentiment and that the Supreme Court is out of touch with the state's residents.

Could the same be said concerning Roe v. Wade? Out of touch? Or even out of date?

Granted, 52 percent, is by no means a large margin at all. And if the court was split in its decision, then it would indeed be in touch with the state's residents. But at the same time, there is a part of me that would rather be led by the majority instead of a small court of judges. Of course, I realize the peril inherent in being led by mob rule / majority vote, so I guess we're stuck either way.

Funny thing, is that I would gladly trade the right to marriage for everyone in exchange for the right to life for everyone. I think that it is obvious that one far outweighs the other. Too bad. Right now, it just seems like everyone loses.