Equal Protection

In a 4-3 decision, the California Supreme Court ruled that a voter approved ban on gay marriage was unconstitutional. As the justices rightly stated, "an individual's sexual orientation — like a person's race or gender — does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights." Such a ruling strikes at one of the most troubling problems with governance for me. On the one hand, I fully believe that the consent of the governed is the only legitimate basis for political power and further, that no one should have another person dictate to him or her what to do or how to live. On the other hand, democracy, as such, is no guarantee of justice or fairness and majority rule obviously leads to a number of offensive systems. What if the people of California, as is allowed by their state Constitution, hold an initiative to amend the Constitution and make gay marriage illegal? And what if a majority of voters support it? Then we would have a situation in which the process of democracy leads to a result that is sanctioned by a majority of voters but is reprehensible to anyone who believes in protections for the minority. Situations such as these lead many a political thinker down the path to what some call "enlightened dictatorship."