California’s Prop 8 passed, eliminating gay marriage, a right already granted by the state, leaving many gay marriages on hold until the government can figure out what to do with them. Both sides expressed shock, many were left disappointed by the outcome of the vote, and I disappointed I was not more active in the No on 8 campaign. I was overconfident, and had I any idea the proposition would pass, I would have done more.

 

I’ve got a major problem with folks that try to use our political system in defense of proposition 8, cause they’re arguments pretty freaking weak and show COMPLETE ignorance about the workings of our system. Speaking to a trusted friend, he tried to explain that he was a supporter of 8 for political reasons:  a room full of judges overturned the will of the people. That’s the strongest argument they’ve got. Seriously.

 

Today I came across a short blogpost defending the passage as a result of just democratic ruling. It’s not clear whether or not this person supports gay marriage or not (probably not), but that’s irrelevant in this case. Here were see the simple fault line in defending Prop 8 politically.

 

(Sigh) Okay, let’s do this.

 

The United States is NOT a democracy in name, but a Republic. You should have gotten this in kindergarten when you had your hand over your heart pledging allegiance to the flag “and to the republic, for which is stands.” We could drag this argument throughout the National Capitol, and even drag it around at the state level.

 

It's on the flag, people.

 

Living in a Republic means the people have a say in their government, via representatives. That’s why in addition to a president, we have congressmen, senators and judges to represent the will the people, particularly the underrepresented. People elect congressmen and senators who they think will represent their thoughts and views in Washington. A great man once said:

 

“The entire reason we have elected officials is so we don’t have to think all the time.” – Homer Simpson

 

Judges, however, are there to watch over civil affairs and make sure that we stick to our declaration’s claim that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed…with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” All men - that includes underrepresented minorities - deserve equal rights under the eyes of the state. This third Judicial branch is there because our forefathers knew that the majority will sometimes overrule the rights of the minority – and that it’s totally not cool. There needs to be a power against the status quo. And we’ve fucked up as a people before: Without judicial intervention in public affairs, women and blacks would have not gotten the vote as early as they have. Gay right to marriage is just the next step in civil liberties.

 

Judicial intervention against the status quo is a governmental necessity. It’s what makes America awesome, so quit bitching about democracy being the final rule. The denial of the recognition of marriage between any two mentally stable, consenting adults IS a violation of constitutional rights. If your church doesn’t wanna perform a gay marriage, that’s their right NOT to. But if a church does, it their right TO do so, and have it recognized as a marriage by the state. This is a religious issue, but is not a state issue. Don’t make me pull up the First Amendment, bitches.

 

To the future lawyers using this defense in court, you’re welcome. Feel free to site me in your notes. To No on 8 folks, consider me all in from now on.