The trial to overturn Proposition 8 isn’t just about defining marriage

Remember Proposition 8 from last year? The one that amended the California Constitution to define marriage as a union “one man and one woman”? Well, Prop 8 is back again. But this time, the whole issue will be battled out in a San Francisco court in a non-jury case called Perry v. Schwarzenegger.

Even though San Francisco is known as one of the most liberal cities in the U.S., 75% of San Francisco voters voted yes on Prop 8 last year. Those who support  traditional marriage definition most definitely have the home field. However, this is the first trial to have its proceedings posted onto Youtube, and millions of people have tuned it to watch the trial.

On the surface, Perry v. Schwarzenegger  is about whether gays and lesbians should have the right to marry in California. If the proposition is overturned, then obviously it would be a huge milestone for supporters of gay rights. But the real issue is whether the constitution can actually define marriage in general because of religious or moral beliefs.

Yes, the framers of the Constitution made references to Christianity in the U.S. Constitution, but that doesn’t mean that religion should be part of any states’ constitution today. “Separation of church and state” is derived from the first amendment of the Constitution, yet still we say “under God, for liberty and justice for all” during the Pledge of Allegiance.

David Boies, a Democrat, and Theodore B. Olson, a conservative Republican, are litigators working to overturn Prop 8. Their political viewpoints are very different, but their working together in this trial shows that the issue here isn’t just about marriage. It’s a constitutional problem about how it should rule our lives.

So if Prop 8 was initiated and passed because of religious beliefs, then I sure hope it’s overturned this time. I wouldn’t want the state constitution have the right to start making some people more equal than others.