Proposition 8 has been reversed! Prop 8 was a measure in California to define marriage as between a man and a woman. This proposition was approved by the people of California in a referendum. This measure would have effectively banned gay marriages and place a clear limit on marriage.

     Some conservatives accused this judge of judicial activism, which is another way of saying disrespect towards the intent of the constitution (law). A judicial activist would make his interpretations of the law without regard for the intent of the law, but through the lens of his ideology. In the case of Prop 8, the judge is biased towards the homosexual lifestyle, therefore he overturned the will of the people of California.

     In one sense, those who are unhappy about this judge's decision is correct. I believe that the intent of this country's founders was to have a government by the people. The forefathers held to the principle of democracy. To overturn the people's decision means to go against the principle of democracy.

     On the other hand, it can be argued that the forefathers wanted to safeguard life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. To violate the right to the pursuit of happiness is against the principles of the forefathers also. The forefathers wanted rule by the majority but protection of the rights of the minority. It can be argued that Prop 8 does violate the right to the pursuit of happiness, in this case the rights of homosexuals to have their union with the one they love and want to spend their lives with recognized by the state. The forefathers would probably be against gay marriage but we don't know that with certainty. The forefathers did not envision this issue coming up, therefore it is up to the present generation to decide this issue. 

     This referendum should have been challenged immediately and not allowed on the ballot if gay marriage is an inherent right (an issue that could open up a can of worms), a question that should have been settled first. By putting it on the ballot, it becomes an issue for the people to decide and the people decided to limit marriage to monogamous adult heterosexuals. The principle of rule by the majority is a clearer principle than the principle of the right to the pursuit of happiness and should be respected.

     Is a definition of what the state would recognize as marriage necessary? To have a legal basis for judgments on inheritance or justice issues when a union breaks up, a limitation of what the state recognizes as marriage is necessary. For example, think of a polygamist (polygamy would also be covered by this referendum) who dies and did not have a will. He has children by his "wives". If there is a dispute on inheritance, who will get his property? If only the first marriage is recognized, then the decision is clear, although not emotionally easy. The children by the first wife gets his property, not the other "wives" or their children.

     Following the principles or the intent behind the law is not always a black and white issue.  Does the right to bear arms give people a right in this country to have an arms race- some people having RPGs or AK47's? Some may say that weaponry could prevent an oppressive government and protect homes, and that is why the forefathers safeguarded the right to bear arms. However, the forefathers did not foresee the weapons of today, therefore, the right to bear arms have to be rethought in this generation.

     What then should the criteria for a judge be? Remember that those for Prop 84 and those against Prop 8 can co-opt the constitution. What then should we really be looking for in our judges? We should be looking for judges who advocate for justice and mercy, things that God values. They must apply the law equally, not favoring the rich, the poor, or those who share their lifestyle. They must apply the law in such a way as not to destroy the guilty, and with compassion for the victim.