I am shocked and, frankly, pleasantly surprised that the courts in California have resisted the urge to legislate from the bench, as they usually do.

The California Supreme Court, in a 6-1 ruling, has upheld a ban on same-sex marriage, ratifying a decision made earlier by voters.

Whether you agree or not, the will of the people has been upheld, as it should have been.

The justices had no choice but to reject this challenge outright. They could not ignore the will of the majority.

What I find interesting is that those opposed to this ruling are arguing that a slim majority rule should not be allowed.

Why not? Name one thing we do not do in this country but by majority rule.

If we did not, every minority whim or fad, no matter how ridiculous or perverted, would be permitted and tagged a civil right.

The people of any state have the right to define what is and is not acceptable in their society. If not them, then whom?

What happens when a minority of people suddenly decides it’s OK to return to the days of slavery or discrimination based upon the color of one’s skin?

How about polygamy? Should this lifestyle choice be a civil right? Many argue polygamy is grounded in love, the same argument the homosexual community opines.

How about a person who loves an animal so much that he or she believes it should be acceptable to marry it? Should that be a civil right?

We could spend all day conjuring up minority lifestyle scenarios. The fact is, the old adages of “anything goes,” or “if it feels good, do it,” or “I should be free to do as I please and society should accept it,” is not reality in a free society.

Nor should it be.

The big question is, when this issue of recognizing gay marriages reaches the U.S. Supreme Court, will the federal court overrule states’ rights?

I think not. I doubt the high court will even hear the case.

Overriding the will of the people of any state would violate the 10th Amendment of the Constitution, which states: “The powers not delegated to the United States by The Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

If the gay community feels it has been wronged, it should exercise with all of its might the right to overturn this decision made by the people of California through the democratic process.

But to say they wished the courts would have been more courageous, as many gay advocates have stated, is a ridiculous statement and the problem with many judges around this country.

And it was a weak Hail Mary ploy by a minority group to neuter the majority. A judge’s role is to interpret and apply the law only, not to legislate from the bench, thereby circumventing the will of the people.

Those in the gay community should get out and let their voices be heard. Their task now is to somehow convince the majority of the California voters that their choice of lifestyle should be considered a civil right and deserves to be considered mainstream in terms of marriage.

I, for one, will defend their right, like any other American, to be heard.

Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Ronald M. George tried to apply salve to the wounds by stating that same-sex couples still have the right to civil unions, which gives them the ability to “choose one’s life partner and enter with that person into a committed, officially recognized, and protected family relationship that enjoys all of the constitutionally based incidents of marriage.”

However, the justices clearly understood the voter message, and realized Californians clearly articulated what the definition of “marriage” is to be in their state: The union of heterosexual couples only.

It seems the court struggled mightily with this case. The justices said, “Our task in the present proceeding is not to determine whether the provision at issue is wise or sound as a matter of policy or whether we, as individuals, believe it should be a part of the California Constitution.”

To further clarify, they wrote: “Our role is limited to interpreting and applying the principles and rules embodied in the California Constitution, setting aside our own personal beliefs and values.”

Whether you are for or against recognizing gay marriages, one thing is crystal clear: The people of California have spoken and homosexual marriages will not be afforded the same formality as heterosexual couples.

I commend the courts of California for doing their job and resisting the urge to legislate from the bench.

They have honored the will of the people.



Robin L. Quillon is the publisher of The Tribune-Democrat. He can be reached at rquillon@tribdem.com.