A student weighs in on Hollingsworth v. Perry



The case that stands before the Supreme Court, Hollingsworth v. Perry, could determine whether or not same-sex couples have the right to get married.

News media have saturated their Web pages with articles relating to that question, different opinions from different people on whether or not homosexuals should be allowed to use the same word of unity, and enjoy the same civic benefits that heterosexual couples are permitted.

The issue I wish to bring up, the issue that the defense will be using, the argument that has been almost completely drowned out by CNN, Fox News and Facebook profile pictures, is entirely different.

We are told and most believe that our vote is important, and that every vote counts. It is the ultimate and most powerful way we as citizens can express our voices.

It elects the most powerful man (or woman) on earth, the president of the United States. It determines, with swift finality, a tenuous issue that legislatures would otherwise argue for years.

Your vote counts. That is what seven million Californians thought when they voted “yes” to Proposition 8 in 2008, effectively banning same-sex marriage in their state.

I am a conservative who supports gay marriage. I wish that Proposition 8 had not been passed, and I applaud the states that have since made gay marriage legal.

The far greater question here, though, is whether or not nine people cloaked in black robes and the authoritative power of the Supreme Court, have the right to undo what seven million voted for in 2008.

The referendum, the voice of the people, is the most basic and most powerful tool of democracy. All else is swept aside, all bureaucracy is declared irrelevant, as a simple question is put before the people.

California was asked if it supported same-sex marriage or not. The answer was no.

I do not anticipate a broad decision by the Supreme Court, but should it nullify this law, it will consequently nullify the votes of seven million people and many others who have voted on the issue in their own state (technically even those who voted in support of gay marriage).

This would not be the first time it has happened, and unfortunately it probably will not be the last. That does not validate it as a legitimate tool of government.

Legislation from the bench is a cowardly way of expediting law. If two groups are in disagreement, educate them, debate them, show the younger generation that you are right and times should change.

Is it a slower process? Yes. Is it more democratic, in tune with how our government and its states should operate? Absolutely.

It is my hope that, one day soon, all couples will be able to enjoy the same civic privileges. A far greater hope is that those privileges come from voters, and not from nine people who can declare, with one swift motion, seven million votes irrelevant.

Your vote counts. Right?