Proposition 8, which passed this last election cycle, actually changed the Constitution in the state of California to say that marriage in that state is only between a man and a woman. People opposed to this idea (the changing of the Constitution) argued forcefully that "equality under the law is a fundamental constitutional guarantee." Well... yes. It is. Frankly, everybody has to follow the law. In theory, you cannot grant special treatment to a select few and say they are above the law. (This is, however, just a theory - since we see people getting special treatment all the time in Washington, D.C.)
Not to change the subject, but I've always been fascinated by men's obsession with sex. They even call items at the hardware store "male" and "female" depending on whether the item is designed to go into something or to allow something in. Take, for example, plumbing. Can you imagine if a plumber decided that he only wanted to plumb with male parts? I would imagine that the first job he had would be the last. Seriously -- in order to declare a property a leak-free zone, you have to use both male and female parts.
But, in reality, the current fight in the court system isn't over same-sex marriage. We don't even need to argue about plumbers and parts and leaks, etc... The current court battle is over whether the people of California have the right to change their own constitution. Can they amend it? Can the majority of the people in a state decide to put something down on their governing paper that the courts then are compelled to follow?
I think it would take a pretty gutsy court to attempt to override the will of the people in their own Constitution. At that point, you have to assume that the courts have taken over and they're the only authority. Clearly, this is not how our founding fathers set things to be in our system of government. C'mon... dig back... three co-equal branches of government... checks and balances... remember?
Since the job of the courts is supposed to be interpretation and enforcement of the law and the Constitution, it would be a big stretch for them to overreach quite that far. They might pull a muscle...
The arguments in the court were interesting. Ken Starr, arguing on behalf of the Proposition, stated that "The people are sovereign - and can do unwise things." This is true. The people can do all kinds of stupid things and have throughout history.
The lawyer opposing the amendment to the Constitution, in a last ditch effort to eke out some victory made the argument that if homosexuals can't say they're married, nobody should be allowed to. Maybe it's just me, but this seems like a really childish argument. I get fat if I eat ice cream in the amounts I would like. I get fat super fast, actually. My husband? He can eat anything he wants and seems to never gain an ounce. To me, this appears to be a drastic discrepancy in the natural order of things. But can you imagine if I told him that he shouldn't eat ice cream since I can't? "No more Klondike bars for you, baby. Not unless I can eat them without getting bigger than our own house." Gracious! But these people make this exact same argument in a courtroom in front of God and everybody.
The chief deputy city attorney of San Francisco, upon leaving the courtroom, said that if the homosexual community didn't get their way this time, they would go back to the ballot box and win. Okay, she didn't use those exact words, but this was the essence of what she was saying. And you know what? I believe they will. It's only a matter of how long it will take.