Majority Rules But Not Over Minority Rights

Proposition 8 (the gay marriage ban) has been overturned today by a Federal Court judge who ruled that the ban was a violation of the Constitution's 14th Amendment which states:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Denying gays to marry is to deny a segment of our population "equal protection of the laws."  What laws?  Well, the laws that give married couples tax benefits, hospital visitation rights, and inheritance of property owned by a deceased spouse, among others.  Gays who are in a committed relationship but who are denied the right to formalize their relationship in a state recognized marriage cannot be treated equally under the laws of the land and therefore any such ban on gay marriage would be unconstitutional.

But what of the argument that the court overturned the will of the majority?  Well, quite simply the majority doesn't always rule, my friends.  If it did, the South might still be segregated.  Majorities in a democratic society could theoretically harm the minority by denying it it's civil rights.  For this reason, the U.S. Congress and the States passed the Bill of Rights, a set of ten amendments to the Constitution that prevents Congress from passing laws that deprive people of their civil rights to practice the religion they want, to say what they want, to join groups they wish to associate with, to defend themselves, to not have their property taken away from them unless under due process, and to be compelled to incriminate themselves in court, among others.  If we truly had a raw majority rule in this country, civil rights could theoretically have been flushed down the toilet during the siting of our first Congress in the late 1700s.

Majority rule is not sacrosanct.  The majority cannot deny the civil rights of our fellow citizens.  The court ruled correctly today in terms of the law and in terms of our values as a secular republic.  If you wish to impose a religious value on the rest of the country then you are talking about living in an theocracy.  There are a few examples of functioning theocracies in the world today - Saudi Arabia and Iran are two that come to mind.  Frankly, I don't want to visit these countries and nor would I want to live in them.  I most certainly wouldn't want the U.S. to become a Christian theocracy.  Religion is too volatile a foundation to derive our civil laws.  Let religion rule your individual spirit if you so desire but do not impose it on those who may not believe in the same mythology.