On November 5, a majority of Californians who went to the polls voted to pass the controversial Proposition 8 and deny homosexuals the right to marry. Prop 8 seeks to add language to the California constitution to make clear only marriages between a man and a woman would be recognized as legal. Prop 8 was a response to a decision by the Supreme Court of California earlier this year ruling unconstitutional a family law provision that contained identical language to Prop 8. Thus, Prop 8 supporters sought to go over the heads of the Justices and take it to the people to change the California Constitution.

Prop 8 has commanded a great deal of attention since Election Day mainly because of the public outcry that followed its passage, as evidenced by very vocal (and sometimes violent) protests in California. The reaction to the reaction has been very polarizing and perhaps counter-productive to opponents of Prop 8 seeking broad public support for their cause. Many Californians were outraged by the protests because it extended their commutes, while others were forced to question their stereotypes of gays as passive and weak (obviously not watchers of the L Word). It also has had the unfortunate result of feeding the lunatic fringe of social conservatives who were all too happy to refocus their anger on homosexuals as the greatest threat to our Country, a label they had unsuccessfully tried to stick to President-elect Obama. I actually heard a discussion on conservative talk radio to the effect that the gays would not stop with being able to marry one another, but actually wanted the ability to marry animals.  Oh that’s right, I remember hearing about that…something about animal husbandry. Maybe its time to apply an IQ test to voters, just to make sure they have one. But I digress.

Last week the Supreme Court of California offered opponents of Prop 8 a ray of hope when it agreed to hear a legal challenge brought by several same sex couples who seek to marry one another. You may not care about Prop 8, but you should. Whether you voted for or against Prop 8, and regardless of how you feel about homosexuals or the expansion of the definition of marriage to include same sex couples, this lawsuit and Prop 8 raise issues of great significance for any American with an interest in safeguarding their Constitutional rights against tyranny of the majority.

The right to marry is recognized as a fundamental right under the United States and California constitutions. Other fundamental rights include the right to free exercise of religion, freedom of speech, and the right to vote. Passage of Prop 8 thus has the effect of denying a fundamental right to a minority of Californians – homosexuals. In other words, Prop 8 reflects a decision by a majority of Californians to limit the fundamental right to marry to heterosexuals, and to thereby exclude homosexuals from the equal protection of the law in California, at least to the extent of engaging in marriage.

So what does all this have to do with me, you ask. It has to do with making our Constitutional rights subject to the will of the majority. Prop 8 was a voter initiative whereby a majority decided to deny a fundamental right to a minority (gays). An analogy is if a majority of Californians decided to deny Muslims the right to exercise their religion, or to limit the right to bear arms to Caucasians. Do we want to live in a Country or State where we permit a majority of the people to decide who among us should be able to exercise fundamental rights? It makes the security of our rights rather fleeting and whimsical.

The challengers of Prop 8 are arguing that the amendment would effect such a change to fundamental principles underlying the California Constitution and it is far more than an “amendment” to the Constitution and actually a “revision.” A revision requires a much more rigorous process, whereby the legislature would need to act first and only then refer the initiative to a popular vote. Although the legal argument sounds technical, the underlying principle is quite simple: when it comes to deciding to alter the constitution so as to limit the application of fundamental rights, are we comfortable leaving that decision to the will of a simple majority? That is a scary prospect as far as I am concerned, particularly since it knows no limits and also given the problems we seem to have as a Nation with vote counting. Perhaps a little more rigor is a good idea.

On a related note, it has been reported that Mormans donated more than $20 million in support of Prop 8. I have no idea if that is true. But what strikes me as curious is why a group with such a terrible public relations problem of their own when it comes to marriage – I watch Big Love after all — would strike out against another group that simply wants to be left alone to enjoy the right to marry, albeit one at a time and not with children as has been reported. I would think the Mormons would want to sit this one out.

But putting aside the politics of Prop 8, isn’t there a better way to spend $20 million? Is homosexual marriage really such a plague and threat to our nation that it must be stooped at all costs? Is it really the biggest challenge we face right now? Bigger than poverty, homelessness, the increased number of war veterans who need to be assimilated into the work force, the auto industry, social security, disease, oil addiction, crack addiction, obesity, corrupt politicians, a failing educational system, health care costs, unemployment, failing banks, home foreclosures, and terrorism? Frankly, I am ambivalent about gay marriage, but I have bigger concerns right now. And unless you are gay, I suggest you should have bigger concerns too. We are facing a lot of bad news and challenges as a nation at the moment, but I have yet to see anyone carrying a gay flag attacking our nation, foreclosing on homes, or perpetrating any other real problem that we now confront. By the way, for all you Prop 8 haters, is your marriage so great?