On Nov. 4, 2008, as the country was celebrating the election of Barack Obama, many residents of California were mourning the change in their state and federal constitution as the ballot initiative “Proposition 8” passed by only a few percentage points.

The proposition, highly funded by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (the Mormon Church), was presented to overturn the state Supreme Court’s upholding of same-sex marriage.  Having led a campaign based heavily in fear mongering, the foes of gay rights seemed to think that the LGBT community and their advocates would simply give up and retreat to their respective “closets” where they could practice their “lifestyles” in private.  The public reaction that followed the proposition’s success, however, couldn’t have been more contrary to their naivety.

Months of legal battle eventually brought the issue of marriage equality to a federal courtroom, presided over by Judge Vaughn Walker.  The attorneys representing the fight against Proposition 8 were Ted Olson and David Boise.

Olson, a conservative republican, and Boise, a liberal democrat, were an unexpected legal team, as they are both known for opposing each other in 2000 during the Bush v. Gore Supreme Court battle.

On the issue of same-sex marriage, however, they united in favor of equality.  After only a few weeks of testimony, fierce cross-examination and months of anticipation, Judge Walker declared Proposition 8 unconstitutional, saying, “Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license.”

This ruling was followed by widespread celebration from the gay community and LGBT advocates.  Right-wing political activists and intrusive religious organizations, however, were quick to criticize Walker’s decision, chalking it up to bias and judicial activism.  One has to wonder; if the federal judge was a conservative, Christian, heterosexual man and ruled in favor of Proposition 8, would the right wing be so quick to criticize his motivations?

In anticipation of the likely Supreme Court battle to come, it is important that we all understand what is really at stake in this case, and who the real victims are.

Those against marriage equality generally hide behind their constitutional right to vote.  They seem to believe that the will of the majority is an unobstructed power able to make whatever decision they want regardless of its constitutionality.

Certainly in general elections, where officials are elected to govern the entire population, it would be appropriate that the entire population have an equal say in the result.

You wouldn’t, however, allow the state of Rhode Island to help decide who will be the governor of the state of Wyoming. Similarly, it wouldn’t be appropriate for the entire population of a state to decide what rights and privileges a smaller, isolated group of individuals should be able to enjoy.

Our Declaration of Independence clearly states, “all men… are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” What will become of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness if one’s neighbors have more of a say in his future than he does?

Admittedly, the issue of marriage equality is not illegitimate in its controversy. There are some arguments, however, that are nothing more than white noise in the legal context of this case.

For instance, The National Organization for Marriage (NOM), a large supporter of the discriminatory California law, is just as much a fundamentalist religious organization as it is a political organization.  They often argue that, because homosexuality is sinful according to their religious beliefs, they should be able to vote on how it is handled.

They use their children as props, claiming it is their right as parents to keep homosexuality out of the lives of their children.  This arbitrary religious commentary is of course useless and lacking in credibility.

Isn’t their religious interpretation only an interpretation?  What if a person’s religious interpretation is tolerant of homosexuality?  Should they not be able to practice freely?

This is simply a clashing of faith in which neither side can be proven right or wrong. The opponents of marriage equality would argue that we should vote to solve this issue.

In other words, if the majority of California voters wish to outlaw constitutional law, then so be it.  Since conservatives are traditionally in the majority, it’s probably very easy to insist on the most expedient means of promoting your opinions and beliefs over others’.

Though harsh words and malicious accusations are hurled back and forth in this debate, the ultimate goal is to find a social equilibrium with our neighbors, to be able to coexist, to accept our differences, or at least our differences in opinion, and to live.

In order to live, however, there has to be a certain willingness on the part of others to let you live, without trying to claim dominance or superiority.  This is the society that the Constitution establishes for us.

It states specifically that no religious interpretation will rule another (Amendment I), and that all Americans are entitled to the equal protection of the law (Amendment XIV).

Interestingly, it also gives us the absolute right to express what we want in the form of a vote.   As long as the right to vote and the guarantee to equal protection of the law exist together in the same Constitution, one will never be able to completely trump the other. Our constitutional rights are meant to coexist, just as humans are.

If the population, however, does not demonstrate a certain willingness to uphold the right to equal protection with their right to vote, and chooses to intentionally harm their neighbors, courts not only have the job, but also the obligation to correct that injustice.

This is where Judge Walker’s critics fail to produce an impressive argument in favor of Proposition 8, in favor of singling out one solitary community (LGBT) to be stripped of a right that they had previously been granted.

There is no question among either side that marriage is a fundamental right.  The Supreme Court has ruled on that fact several times since the 19th century, perhaps most famously in Loving v. Virginia, when interracial marriage was made legal.

This provides even more of a burden for the Proposition 8 supporters; they must explain not only what legitimate interest the state of California has in denying marriage licenses to gay couples, but also why the will of the majority should be able to strip the gay community of a fundamental right.

The spirit of this proposition is wrong, the quest of its supporters is conceited, the societal impact is polarizing, and yet the result will inevitably be monumental.  If American history has taught us anything, it is that injustice in law does not last.

Though it may last for a while, it is the natural tendency of our society to evolve and to phase out divisive and discriminatory laws in the pursuit of coexistence.

Proposition 8 and all similar initiatives will die inevitably, but they will die alone. Their death will not be followed by the minds and values of the American people.  Instead, this country will continue to do what it always does eventually− embrace differences in opinion and agree to coexist.

The social conservatives and religious activists will learn to live with equality, but that won’t begin to happen until our justice system paves the road for them, until they are stripped of the unobstructed power to control the lives of others from the voting booth.