(note: this applies to the United States and people in it. If you aren't, its still true. It just won't apply to wherever you are.)

I'm sure many people are well aware of the big deal that came along with Prop. 8 in California. What most of you are probably not aware of is the reason something like that could happen.

The point of a proposition is that the general public votes for (or against) some new law. While democracy is nice to some extent, this is a mistake.

We do not live in a democracy. Before I continue, I should probably be sure that gets said. We live in a republic. Its true. You don't pledge allegiance to democracy. "And to the republic..." Sure its a democratic republic, but its still a republic.

Whats the point?
Simple. In a democracy, people vote for stuff. In a republic, a select few make the decisions. In a democratic republic, the people vote for a select few, who make all the decisions.

But whats the point?
The point is the reason we have laws. Sure its nice to have order and such, but what is the real purpose of law? In general, a system ruled by the will of the general public will come to whatever order the masses desire as a result of being desired by the masses.

Laws exist in some cases to establish standards and order. But in other cases, the laws are there to protect the few from the many. Things like fair trial exist to make sure suspects are found guilty before being executed, even if most people in the "system" would rather just get their revenge, or what have you.

So if the laws sometimes serve the purpose of protecting the few from the many, then how on earth can we get "good" laws by asking the many? That system gives the many a way to make laws that let them do whatever they want to the few. A good system protects everybody.

---------------------------------------------------------------

So in California, there is no system protecting people from other people. And that is the problem with things like Prop. 8. The many chose to take rights away from the few.

So if we've established that Prop. 8 is wrong because of how it was made, then what can be said about the topic?

The problem with the issue is the definition of marriage. Some people would say that marriage is between a man and a woman always and only. Thing is, there is no legal definition anywhere (except our illegitimate proposition) that says such a thing. So where does this come from? Religion. It is strictly a religious definition.

By enacting Prop. 8, what California has done is forced a religious law on people, with the only basis being the religion itself. Murder is bad, regardless of religion. But marriage is between a man and a woman because of religion.

It in no way affects anybody who isn't directly involved, so it can't be a comparative rights issue (murder = your right to kill ends at my right to live, for example). So the only reason we can say marriage between anything other than a man and a woman is wrong is because some kind of morality says so. As I already mentioned, the only things we have for that come from religion.

So what is the legal version of marriage then?
The legal version of marriage exists mostly for financial purposes. We define people as legal entities (ie, citizens). Marriage is a process by which two entities can be treated as one for certain purposes (taxes, legal).

So how does gay marriage fit into that?
Gay marriage can work the same as regular marriage for any legal purpose.

-------------------------------------------

So we have two options. Option 1) allow gay marriage. This is the "better" option. It has no negative effects for anybody. It provides basic rights to people who were born a certain way (thats right, they were born that way).

Option 2) ban gay marriage. We're telling these people that they can't have those legal rights that apply to marriage. To be fair then, we must also stop providing any legal benefits to "normal" married couples.

And please don't even consider the whole "civil union" garbage. Separate but equal. Now, I can't begin to tell you how many people have said "...and don't give me that separate but equal stuff." That seems to be the bigot's get out of jail free card or something. But its true. Separate but equal is exactly what people are claiming by calling gay marriage "civil unions".

===========================================

So what can we get from all that?

1) Gay marriage is just as legitimate as "regular" marriage. Either we get both, or we get neither.

2) The California proposition system is completely illegitimate, and ruins the purpose of law.