The U.S. federal court ruling against California’s Proposition 8 earlier this month is an example of how the judicial branch of government can work effectively to uphold the democratic principles in the U.S. Constitution even when the citizenry will not. 

Remember the three branches of government? Although the majority of Californians voted in 2008 to ban same-sex marriage with a majority of 52 to 48 percent, the checks and balances inherent in the U.S. Constitution have been able to stall this discriminatory law passed by the prejudiced majority in California. For now, same-sex marriage advocates can celebrate. 

The 2-1 decision by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Feb. 7 upheld an earlier 2010 decision by a lower appellate court that the law violated the Constitution’s equal protection clause. While some may claim that Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker, who has come out as a homosexual, was biased against the bill because of his sexual orientation, the argument would also make any heterosexual judge who rules in favor of the ban biased as well. 

This is the precise discretion that judges have, all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court, which currently is wrestling with whether to hear the case and issue a ruling affecting the entire nation, or not. 

The sad, and suprising reality is that for a state usually associated with progressive laws and ideas, a campaign against same-sex marriage based around religous law  was effective in uniting ignorant people of faith across many political spectrums to form a simple majority yet again intent on discriminating against the LGBTQ community.