Does prohibition of gay marriage deny the fundamental rights of gays?

Prop. 8 stands; more ballot battles ahead

California's voters, not its courts, are the final judges of same-sex couples' right to marry. And even if they're barred from marrying, gays and lesbians are not the victims of unconstitutional discrimination...

The main legal argument by Prop. 8's opponents - two groups of same-sex couples, local governments led by the city of San Francisco, and a collection of civil-rights, gay-rights and feminist organizations - was that the state Constitution contains a 'core guarantee' of equality that limits voters' amendment powers. A minority group's fundamental rights, they argued, should not be subject to repeal by majority vote.

The opponents of Proposition 8 have a point: that a minority group's fundamental rights should not be subject to repeal by majority vote. Yet for the public to take measures to preserve the ancient, heterosexual institution of marriage does not do anything of the sort.

The state has a legitimate interest in protecting heterosexual civil marriage, and among these protections are regulations about who may enter into it with whom. A man may not marry his four year-old son. A woman may not marry her father or brother, or a chimpanzee. A man may not marry a dead woman, or three other women simultaneously. These restrictions do not deny my rights, but promote the good of society by respecting and favoring traditional marriage between one man and one woman.

Yes, a minority group's fundamental rights should not be subject to repeal by majority vote. But that's not the issue. The issue is whether a majority of the people should be forced to tolerate a redefinition of traditional civil marriage to accommodate the demands by a vocal minority, demands which undermine both marriage and weaken society.

And most people in most states oppose redefinition of marriage in this way.