Proposition 8 and Judicial Review

As most people know (if any hermits are reading my blog, there are a few issues there), a federal district court judge in San Francisco struck down California's Proposition 8 (defining marriage in the state of California as only between a man and woman).

There has been a lot of complaining from church members and comments about this decision, many of which I understand. When it comes down to it, however, I feel that many people do not truly understand the issues at question. One comment that I continually hear is "Why should I vote if my vote doesn't even matter?" or "How can one man undo the voting of millions of Californians?" While I understand the sentiment, I completely and whole-heartedly believe that many people are mistaken in their understanding.

Let me start with a simple question. If tomorrow the state of California voted to kill all Mormons and to deprive them all of their property, would you argue that a federal court should not strike down such a blatantly unconstitutional law? (The Constitution prohibits a state from depriving a person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; a vote doesn't count as due process.)

Many people might say that this is an extreme example and it is, but that is the point. If you say, as a matter of principle, that a judge cannot strike down a law, then they cannot in my example as well. If however, you believe a judge could in my example, than you do not truly believe that a judge cannot strike down a law that people voted for. Rather you believe that a judge cannot strike down a constitutional law. But that is the whole point of the trials - to determine whether Proposition 8 is constitutional.

Perhaps the greatest logical fallacy that people often make is to assume a conclusion. Here is how it works: If you think that Proposition 8 should not go to trial, you are arguing that because it is Constitutional, a court should not...determine...if...it...is...Constitutional. See the problem? It is a horrible logical fallacy to make.

Now, in defense of those who believe in traditional marriage, it is okay to argue that the Equal Protection clause does not prohibit a state from granting the marriage benefits to select groups (as they do with every other benefit), but try and learn why it does not prohibit it (perhaps a later blog post will discuss this). You are completely allowed to disagree with the results of the trial, but that is very different than disagreeing with the process with led to the trial. And because you should agree with the process, make sure that your arguments are valid and supported about the results.