Prop 8 and Its Implications

Today the Supreme Court of California heard arguments on Prop 8 and whether or not it should be overturned.

The main thrust of the case against Prop 8 being overturned was that the people had spoken and the court shouldn't be able to overturn the will of the people.

The problem with that is, especially in this case, that the people making their will known in this case are largly unaffected by the results of the laws they hoped to inact. The majority of people will not be personally effected by the inability of gays and lesbians to get married. It won't matter to them personally because they aren't homosexual.

Plenty of laws that have been held by a majority of the people have been found to be unconstitutional. It's the whole reason we have a constitution in the first place. In fact this whole country is founded on it. Laws were being made in England that affected the lives of those in the colony known as America. We became our own country because we disagreed with laws that were being made by those who were unaffected by those laws. We felt that we had inalienable rights that were being ignored by "the will of the people" in England. The Federal Constitution is in place to protect those rights as is the California Constitution.

A few months before last years election in which Prop 8 barely passed, the California State Supreme Court recognized that Sexual Orientation was a sub group just as deserving of equality. They wrote that you could not discriminate against a group of people because of their race, sex, or sexual orientation according to the state supreme court. Because of that, they wrote, the state must recognize same sex marriages.

Prop 8 hoped to recognize marriage as something that can only take place between a man and a woman thereby denying marriage to homosexuals. By definition this is discriminating against people because of their sexual orientation.

However, the court opened the session pointing out that the Constitution is an evolving document meant to support the will of the people and that Prop 8 is a change to the document that was handled as any amendment should be and that overturning it could be seen as a judicial misuse of power in overturning the will of the people.

So, what is the case of the state in hoping to overturn Prop 8?

Simple, it is by the will of the people that the court has the right to overturn a change to the Constitution that changes the Constitution from what it is fundamentally, that being a document meant to protect the rights of all. The state's case boils down to the idea that a majority should not be able to limit the rights of a minority simply because they are a majority.

If Prop 8 is upheld, the precedent that could set would be enormous. Despite the fact that the Constitution opens with the idea of equality for all (the very thing that this nation and each state under it is supposed to stand for) this idea would mean that you could take away the rights of any group in the State of California simply by convincing enough people to vote for it. I have no doubt that this is not what the framers of that Constitution intended. And it is because such a thing is possible that the Constitution gives the State Supreme Court the right to overturn such a misuse of power by the majority.

The will of the people is an important thing, but they shouldn't be allowed to take away the rights of others simply because they are a majority. Checks and balances are another thing that this country was founded on.

The arguments are over and we await the decision of the court, it should come within 90 days, and I hope that the court recognizes the dangers inherint in not overturning Prop 8. That is a dangerous precedent. Far more dangerous then any person in the slight majority erroniously claiming Judicial Misuse of Power.