It Ain't Over 'Til It's Over...

The top courts in California are being asked to review whether a "voter-approved ban" on same-sex unions was constitutional. According to The New York Times, many cities and civil rights groups are petitioning to have their cases heard before judges. They believe the ban "is a substantial revision of [California's] Constitution, and therefore requires legislative approval." A long with this ruling, the courts will also making a ruling over the "legality of some 18,000 same-sex marriages" that took place in the state this past year. Some feel that by banning same-sex marriages they are being denied "equal protection under the state's Constitution." 

The case will start on December 19th of this year; it shall be very interesting. On the one hand, If they overturn the initiative to have same-sex marriages banned, the majority who voted, however slight, will be upset and claim that democracy has been thrown out of the window. If they spoke loud and (somewhat) clearly, then why shouldn't the will be carried out. On the other hand, the "will of the people" overturned the Supreme Court decision to allow same-sex marriages in the first place. The Supreme Court felt that they were protecting the rights of homosexuals who wanted to marry. But were they undemocratic in going against the will of the people? What's so wrong with protecting the rights of minorities? Ask the majority.

So who's wrong and who's right? Stay tuned.