Whining about the Prop 8 ruling avoids a real discussion

Since a federal district court overturned California's Proposition 8, there hasn't been a conservative candidate willing to say anything nice about the U. S. judicial system. And like all rulings that don't end up fitting conservatives' paradigms, the ultimate cause of  Prop 8's demise are "activist judges": judges whose political views influence their decisions. In other words, all federal judges.

Interestingly enough, the activist judges that plague our judicial system have actually been more beneficial to conservatives in recent years. Thanks to the Roberts Supreme Court, there is now no legal doubt that money equals speech and that the right to own a semiautomatic pistol is fundamentally constitutional.

The likelihood of Prop 8 being reinstated is higher than what most may expect. The Roberts court is still a conservative one, and the only vote in question is Justice Anthony Kennedy's, since he has had an eclectic stance on gay rights issues.

Nevertheless, not many moments of clarity from campaigning conservative politicians are present in the shitstorm that followed the Prop 8 ruling. Meg Whitman, Republican candidate for governor of California, recently promised to defend Prop 8, saying that she will make sure to "give the [Prop 8] ruling standing to be able to appeal to the circuit court" if elected. Because, you know, state governors have the power to do that, not the federally appointed judges. "Governor" is actually just another word for "local judicial dictator." Those people we call judges are just there because as society, we like to make grownups dress up like black, satanic sages.

It's hard to not be cynical about current discourse surrounding this issue. The continuous bickering about the recent ruling feels like nothing but flagrant opportunism among conservatives and liberals alike.

Still, the reality of the Roberts court isn't stopping Whitman, along with other "Mama Grizzlies"—the group of conservative, Sarah Palin-backed women who like posing with assault rifles. Or, as Sarah Palin herself described them in her "SARAH PAC" ad, they're the "moms [who] just kinda know when something's wrong."

Well, if there really is something "kinda wrong" going on, it's the dolled-up, us-versus-them arguments over this social issue. According to her and the other Mama Grizzlies of the world, some undemocratic force is hijacking our lives and it needs to be stopped.

That undemocratic force happens to be a branch of our government. So instead of drumming up empathy for the "will of the people," as Palin called it in interviews with Fox News, this may actually be a good time to talk about the role of the courts, instead of defining marriage. Such a discussion is indeed complex, but it's also a lot easier to talk about the role of government than the definition of marriage.

We could start with the fact that the federal courts are seen as protectors of important rights against the majority's will. In the case of gay marriage, Ted Olson, the conservative constitutional lawyer who helped bring down  Prop 8, told Fox News that the right to marry is a fundamental right, determined by the Supreme Court, for all individuals, regardless of race, religion, and now, sexual orientation.

According to Olson, we don't get to put these rights to a vote. Not that this discussion is necessarily better, but if we want to move on the issue of gay marriage instead of using the dilemma as a way to gain votes, then talking about the role of the judiciary is the only practical choice.