Although the population of California approved once again a measure to define marriage as being between one man and one woman, progressive organizations are going to the courts to overturn it. Apparently these activists do not believe in the will of the people even in a state renowned for being a bulwark of social liberalism. If states like Virginia and Mississippi and states like California approve of a good definition of marriage, maybe we should just keep that definition. It seems to have a good consensus. Yet the struggle continues, as reported in the following story.

Says the Oakland Tribune, "Those urging the California Supreme Court to invalidate Proposition 8's same-sex marriage ban seemed to have had a tough row to hoe Thursday, peppered by justices' questions on balancing marriage rights with voters' rights to change the state constitution."

The challenge is "whether such rights can be limited or revoked by an amendment, by a revision or at all; and how majority rule balances with protection of historically disadvantaged minorities' fundamental liberties."

Of course the usual claims of slippery slope and all minorities are in danger came up, notably via Attorney Raymond Marshall who represented the so-called civil-rights groups, claiming that Proposition 8 should be overturned in order "to protect fundamental principles of equal protection."

Ken Starr of Clinton scandal fame, was part of the defense for Proposition 8. Regarding what exactly the voter-approved measure does, Starr said it "simply restores the traditional definition of marriage to a long-standing status quo."

Source:

Richman, Josh, "Prop. 8 has day in court", Oakland Tribune, March 5th, AD 2009, http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_11838385?source=most_emailed, accessed March 6th, AD 2009.