Proposition 8 Overturned: the Right Decision

There has been much discussion recently regarding Chief US District Judge Vaughn Walker's decision to strike down Proposition 8, the law that provided that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." Conservatives have generated an outcry, declaring that one man alone silenced the voices of seven million Californian voters. Others have argued that Judge Walker's decision is a prime example of judicial activism, some going as far as calling the decision tyrannical in nature. These criticisms are absolutely wrong.

The first few complaints that appeared on forums and blogs across the nation had the same common theme: that the courts had stolen the power from the people. But it doesn't matter whether you agree or disagree that allowing gay marriage in America is a good or bad thing; it doesn't matter what your morality or conscience tells you about this issue at all. The point is, legally, Judge Walker's decision is absolutely valid. In fact, the entire purpose of the court system was to have the power of judicial review, or the ability to strike down laws if they are unconstitutional. So I don't understand why people are complaining when the courts struck down Proposition 8 even when so many voters approved it. That is literally the reason courts were created. The courts exist as a safeguard to prevent the tyranny of the majority. They ensure that rights cannot simply be voted away by a population that cannot relate to a certain minority group. That is why African Americans took to the courts in the mid-1900s. When the voters refuse to grant a group rights that they are due, then the courts are there to protect those rights. That is precisely what we are seeing here. The right to marry is a guaranteed right confirmed over and over again in the Supreme Court. As such, Californians have no legal ability to strip certain individuals of that right through the passage of a proposition. The law conflicts with a basic human right, and as a result it must be struck down. Judge Walker's decision was not judicial activism in any sense: it abided by precedent, and it did not in any way "legislate from the bench." Indeed, it was an act of judicial responsibility, because when a judge sees a law that is unconstitutional, he or she has a duty to strike it down.

Here is a great video of Ted Olson arguing in favor of same-sex marriage on Fox News.

Hopefully this case and others will find a way to the Supreme Court so that a national ruling can be made. To me it is ridiculous in this day in age that the right of gays to marry is considered a "state issue." Basic rights should not and cannot be fought at the state level because that ensures that some states will be tyrannical. As Ted Olson argues in the video, what if our right to free speech were questioned? What if the politicians up in Washington decided that they didn't want to get involved in the issue and let the states decide? What if we were only given that basic human right in some places in the country? We need to be consistent here. If the courts have ruled that marriage is a basic right then no state, anywhere in the nation, should have the power to infringe upon that right. That means that two consenting adults, no matter where they are or what their sexual orientation, must legally be allowed to marry. I hope that the inevitable Supreme Court finally makes this clear so that tyranny at the state level can come to an abrupt and permanent stop.