Proposition 8, a passed California ballot initiative, was declared unconstitutional last week, allowing same-sex couples the opportunity to be married. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the initiative was unconstitutional because the initiative tried to unnecessarily deny rights to a particular group.

Some conservatives disagree with the ruling and say the will of the people was trampled on by the ruling. Michael Graham, a talk show host on WTKK-FM in Boston, said our rights are all voted upon. In 2007, he argued the people of Massachusetts should decide whether to legalize gay marriage, not the state Supreme Court.

When it comes to rights, the majority does not always have the ability to impose its will on others. Simply because a majority of Californians wanted to define marriage as between one man and one woman does not mean the law should reflect it.

Imagine if the people of the United States had directly voted and had the final say on issues of other’s rights. Slavery could have continued for much longer. Whether women should be able to vote could have been decided by the entire male voting population. African-Americans might not have had their right to vote protected by the Constitution. These advances could have come later or not at all. In all these cases, the people did not vote — elected representatives did. If people had voted, outcomes could have been worse.

Allowing the public to vote on critical issues like the ability to vote or to marry does not seem to be the best way to ensure equality under the law. It frustrates conservatives like Graham who believe that by granting authority to the government to decide certain matters is a dismissal of the voting public. The government, in this case, is fairer at making decisions than ordinary citizens. This is not acceptable to many conservatives.

Graham wrote on his blog about those who advocate for same-sex marriage. ‘Who do they think cast the ballots in favor of the nineteenth Amendment granting women the right to vote? Obviously not the ladies,’ he wrote. ‘Gay marriage advocates are utterly wrong on rights. The fact is, every civil right we enjoy today was approved by the free people through the democratic process.’

What Graham and others who disagree with the ruling fail to remember is Californians who are gay had the right to marry. Then the people voted to take that right away. The purpose of the ballot initiative, as the court decided, was for no other reason than to discriminate.

Judge Stephen Reinhardt wrote in the majority opinion, ‘Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples.’

Others who disagreed with the court’s ruling generally are against gay marriage for a variety of reasons similar to the standard arguments. Those who resist the expansion of gay rights will be judged in a similar way to those who resisted the right for people of two different races to marry. In 50 years, these individuals will be lumped in the same group of Americans who wanted to deny rights to other minorities.

By all indications, this case will be appealed to the federal Supreme Court for a final ruling. The sooner all Americans realize being gay is not a preference or alternative lifestyle, other issues may be addressed. The population overall might not agree with gay marriage, but as more states legalize it, Americans will figure out progress toward equality will not stop.

Harmen Rockler is a junior newspaper journalism and political science major. His column appears every Monday. He can be reached at horockle@syr.edu.  

Published on February 12, 2012 at 12:00 pm