Here’s a hypothetical situation: California voters (or the voters in your state of residence) pass an amendment to the state constitution which says that marriage is defined solely as a union between one man and one woman, and the man must be taller than the woman. Would you:
1. Accept this law, since “the people have spoken,” and the will of the majority must always prevail.
2. Accept this law, since in your relationship, as in most traditional marriages, the man is taller than the woman.
3. Fight to have this law repealed, since it is clearly discriminatory and intrusive, and gives the government the power to control what is a personal, social, and/or moral issue.
If your answer is Number 3, can you provide an argument for why you would do so that is logically consistent with your reasons for supporting Proposition 8?
Also, please note the part about it being a “hypothetical situation,” as in, made up for the purposes of a thought experiment. Reasons why this would never happen are not valid answers (nor are attacks on my character or predictions of where I’m going to spend eternity). I don’t see how there is a logical difference, but there are a lot of people out there who are smarter than I am, so if there is a difference I’d like someone to point it out and explain it to me in terms even I can understand 
Also note that this is not a "trick" question. There is no "Ha! But guess what!" waiting for you. I think I’ve been sufficiently transparent in my wording that it’s painfully obvious what I’m getting at. I’m not trying to open up a forum for both sides to bash each other (so Prop 8 opponents, please try to restrain your indignation and be civil), but I would like to explore the ramifications of this amendment.
Legal Reform Blogs
