Why aren't all matters referendable?

Question

Recently there was a parliamentary decision in Portugal that approved a referendum to the co-adoption and adoption by homosexual couples (already allowed to marry). This is generating a scandal in Portugal, the argument being that the rights of minorities should not be referendable, exactly to avoid the [Tyranny of the majority](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority)From my understanding of Rousseau's the social contract (as far as the book 1+2 is concern), the general will is the only thing the state follows. It thus seems to support that referendums should be valid for any matter.My question is, within the social contract theory, is it correct to say that all matters should be referendable?In this case, what is the theory that is compatible both with the social contract and at the same time accounts for the Tyranny of the majority? Because Rousseau's social contract does not seem to account it for.

Answer 1

To make all disputes referendable is to deny that there are any rights.

What did the American Founders say? That these are God-given and unalienable. And why? So that they could not be brought down to the level of debate and possible loss.

if you take 10 horrible disputes for evil things and submit them to the referendum, some will pass. But they should not. You give no vote to the experience of our millions of ancestors over thousands of years. It is because people's Freedom of Religion and of Conscience was brought into the political sphere that many were killed and persecuted. Look up the UN Declaration of Human Rights and see what should never be on a referendum.