I would have voted against Proposition 8 in California, however, I think its passage shows what democracy is about. Maybe. I think democracy worked.

As it looked like it was going to pass, in my own disbelief, I thought, "What the hell, isn't the legislature supposed to pass laws? Not the people!" Oh, wait.

Whoops, I realized. The legislature is an elected body that's supposed to represent the various communities of a geographic area. Communities send their representatives to governments to represent their interests.

However, if the people's representatives aren't doing the will of the people on a particular issue, it's in the people's rights to take it to the streets and vote for legislation they want passed by themselves. Ergo Proposition 8. People against gay marriage mobilized to speak their will. It was a fair fight as far as I can tell, and they won.

That's why California has the proposition system. Not every piece of legislation should be taken to the people, because that would be too much, too cumbersome, that's why we have representatives; but when there's an issue that's important enough and stands out enough, this is what will happen.

Rallies continue against the passage of Proposition 8, and I'm not impressed by what people are saying. One person was saying it was unfair because the propaganda confused people. To me, that person was saying people are too stupid not to be confused. They can't tell one side of an issue and an argument for themselves. All it takes is a little confusing propaganda and they will vote totally contrary to what they would have voted.

I saw one sign saying "Marriage is a human right". This is a personal beef, but marriage is not a human right, it's a civil right. Marriage is not a right conferred on individuals as a result of their basic humanity. It's a right conferred as a result of being a part of a particular civil society (nb: The China Post did just run an article in which someone correctly identified marriage as a civil right).

That said, the fight for gay marriage will continue and will succeed in the end. Maybe in another 10, 20, 30 years. But I see an analogy with interracial marriage. It was not long ago that it was absolutely inconceivable for a black man to marry a white woman. It was a lynching crime. It was a crime punishable by death (for the darker part of the marriage, at least).

It's hard to imagine now, but that's because of the tide of social change. The same social currents will eventually make people realize that marriage, the legal and sacred social union between two people, is not constrained by a narrow ideology, whether it be religion or homophobia.

So fight on supporters of gay marriage. I back it and will voice my opinion in backing it. But on this past election day, in this time, in that place, opponents won fair and square. Whether the issue takes the short cut to the Supreme Court and gets ruled unconstitutional is another issue. The California Supreme Court already ruled on the issue, and would likely strike down Prop 8.

As for the U.S. Supreme Court, they'll likely continue to try to duck the issue as long as possible until it is politically ready. That's how they work, and actually I think that's part of their wisdom.