Hmmm. Gay marriage, yes or no. Two options. One side wins. The other side loses. The side with the most cast votes wins. The other side does not. I believe you are simply wrong.
You clearly don't know the difference between plurality vs. majority.
Plurality = the position or candidate with largest number of ACTUAL VOTES in an electoral contest or initiative...wins.
Majority = the position or candidate which/who gains the MAJORITY support (i.e. half the POPULATION +1)...wins.
First, why not? (referring to people not being absolutely free to set ANY law which might be popular)
Many reasons. Legally speaking, there IS such a thing as constitutional muster. Certain kinds of laws -- for example, ones which are recognized as being examples of a select few kinds of barred discrimination -- are preempted by federal requirements (the US Constitution).
ETHICALLY speaking, which is the far more important basis, conscientious people who have more than a passing trivial interest in working towards a cooperative and productive form of civilization recognize that any variant of rule which can be boiled down to a contest of raw numbers (i.e. votes, dollars spent, TV stations owned, etc.) is vulnerable to domination through means OTHER THAN reasonable appeal and genuine public interest. Put another way...the commonsense recognition that a policy need not be fair or constructive in order to be popular and legally prevalent leads to concerns over protection of certain minimal rights of the politically vulnerable. This is why, for example, IT DOESN'T MATTER HOW POPULAR certain kinds of discriminatory laws are...they are still NOT permissible.
Second, if the sovereign people are not the source of the laws what entity is? If the source of the state's power is not derived from the willing consent of the governed what is the point of maintaining the government?
I'd happily agree that the source of LEGITIMATE sovereignty would be informed genuine consent of the people. That consent NEVER HAPPENED in the United States, or in just about any current country on earth, as far as I can tell. Coercive rule is, sadly, the dominant norm. In terms of where current U.S. sovereignty ACTUALLY comes from, it comes from force and threat of violence. You can't opt out of living under U.S. rule; you'd have to engage in a successful armed revolt to do so. If you move to another country, you just trade one unjust government without a mandate from the people for another one.
Has it not become tyrannical?
No, it hasn't BECOME tyrannical...it was that way from the start.
If the people are voting then the state is compelled to listen to the votes results. The losing side will have to continue to change the hearts and minds of enough citizens to win the next time the voters choose.
The will of the prevailing plurality of voters is not necessarily the will of the people of the state. BUT...Even if we suspend reality and pretend that such votes actually DO unambiguously relate the political will of the state (for example, some landslide win in a miraculously high -- 90%+ -- voter turnout), it would STILL be the case that there are certain minimum conditions which no proposed law may violate.
I completely understand the mob rule position which asserts that a state government should just do whatever the prevailing voters want...but I reject it. It is possible (and lately, as in Arizona) to achieve electoral victory for laws which are blatantly discriminatory, and unjust laws warrant no allegiance.
If the alleged "will of the people" was to take your children from you and imprison them for no valid reason, would you be singing such high praise for the premise of voters'-will-above-all? I doubt it.
Those are good arguments to change the minds of the people. They are not good arguments for overturning the peoples' votes.
There are some things people shouldn't get to vote on in the first place. This is a perfect example. To suggest otherwise (i.e. that it's OK for complete strangers with far greater numbers to get to vote on matters which don't affect them at all, but may have profound impact on others -- like gay and lesbian couples) is to endorse the principle of mob rule, in which any rational basis for supporting or opposing a policy is tossed out the window and the only thing which effectively matters is how much support you do or don't have for a policy.
All groups are politically vulnerable.
Wrong. Some groups are privileged (they enjoy dominance, they get their way on most issues as a matter of routine, and it's rare for them to need to put up a fight in order to have their interests well-represented), some groups are targeted/oppressed (meaning they normally do NOT have their interests represented, they fight a constant uphill battle, and in political contests they normally lose), and many groups are somewhere in between. Back here in the real world, life is easier (materially, socially, economically) -- other things equal -- if you are "white" instead of a person of color, if you are rich instead of poor, if you are male instead of female, etc.
I would predict on this phrase alone that you are a liberal.
And you'd be more wrong than I expect you are currently capable of even conceiving.
Liberals divide people into groups.
Anyone doing analysis divides people into groups. Don't get sillier than you already are.
Citizens are individuals. Voters clearly believe they have a stake in the outcome or the vote would have had a different outcome. If not the citizens then who should get to decide?
As above. YES, the people should decide...but NO...NOT every person should have a substantial say in every decision. For example, I shouldn't have the slightest bit of say in who you choose to marry, because it doesn't affect me at all (while it affects you and your spouse-to-be quite a lot). That's still people deciding, but not everyone has equal input.
Of course I am okay with the way the voters vote. It is the best way decide how we are to live.
That's easy to say when you are among the privileged rather than the targeted. It's the same kind of false populism pushed by all kinds of people who are not facing any kind of threat. Would you feel differently if you were a Jew (or a real socialist, or a homosexual, or a dissident) in Nazi Germany? Or an atheist in an explicit theocracy, facing life imprisonment for heresy/non-belief?