We are living during a momentous time in California and United States history.

On November 4, 2008, a narrow majority vote by the people of California amended the California Constitution, introducing inequality that will have an immediate and detrimental impact on a minority.

Throughout history, profound political thinkers such as Plato, Aristotle, Madison, Tocqueville, and J.S. Mill, all expressed fear of the dangers of majority rule being used to enforce religion, language, culture, or ideology upon a minority.

The name given to their fear was Tyranny of the Majority.

Our founding Fathers grappled with this fear and attempted to develop a system that would not only enshrine certain inalienable rights for all citizens—including Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness—but also develop a system that would attempt to protect us all from Tyranny of the Majority.

Many Americans consider majority rule, or a simple majority vote of the people, to be the foundation of our political system. This could not be further from the truth. Our political system took great care to protect the United States Constitution from Tyranny of the Majority in part by requiring a super majority, or two-thirds majority, vote of Congress in order to ratify an amendment.

Notably, California has two ways to modify its Constitution. The first is through a Constitutional Amendment that represents minor changes and does not pass through our legislature prior to public vote. The second is a Constitutional Revision that supposedly represents major changes. Unlike Amendments, Revisions require a super majority (two-thirds) blessing from each house of the State legislature.

Astoundingly, a simple majority, not a super majority, of the people is all that is required to amend the California Constitution, including amendments that eliminate rights and introduce inequality.

The passing of Proposition 8 by a narrow majority vote is a modern-day example of Tyranny of the Majority.

However, proponents of Proposition 8 are not tyrannical. They have firmly held beliefs surrounding their notion of traditional marriage and family values that must be respected, just as opponents of Proposition 8 have firmly held beliefs surrounding marriage and family values, equality under the law, the separation of Church from State, and a recognition that same-sex couples are citizens granted equal protection under our laws.

What makes the result of this California vote tyrannical is a legal system that allows a simple majority to eliminate the rights of a minority. The Proposition 8 amendment introduces a "separate but equal" status within the California legal system, where "separate but equal" really means unequal.

To credit the proponents of Proposition 8, they cleverly chose a Constitutional Amendment, avoiding the need for a super majority vote in the State legislature. They organized, they rallied, they donated, they advertised their ideologies, and they ran an effective campaign that surprisingly resulted in only winning a simple majority, not an overwhelming majority, of the people of California.

Plato, Aristotle, Madison, Tocqueville, and J.S. Mill correctly predicted the effects of the California Constitutional amendment process: Tyranny of the Majority will exercise its power, especially in the slimmest of margins. 52% supported Proposition 8. 48% opposed Proposition 8. There were millions of voters on both sides and almost a 50/50 split, yet a minority still suffers.

Respecting the opinions of these two equal voting groups should result in a California Constitution that treats both groups equally under the law. The current amendment does the opposite; it favors the simple majority, eliminates rights of a minority, and entrenches inequality.

You may well ask yourself what if Proposition 8 had not passed, what if the amendment was not ratified, and what if same-sex couples were granted equal marriage rights under the law? Why would that not be Tyranny of the Majority thrust upon proponents of Proposition 8? No rights are taken away from citizens. Everyone continues to be treated equally under the law. Everyone is free to practice a religion. Everyone is free to pursue happiness. Everyone is bound by an equally applied civil union law. Everyone is allowed to qualify their personal, non legal, definition of a marriage. There is no tyranny in the alternative.

Such a slim margin of victory is a clear sign that our social attitudes are changing, just as attitudes have changed since the shameful days when the majority of our society decreed that African Americans were “sub-human”—that they had no more status before the law than that of property. We as a society are learning from our mistakes. However, history has also taught us to remain forever on guard against Tyranny of the Majority.

Fortunately, at least two legal challenges were presented to the California Supreme Court. The first challenges the notion that Proposition 8 is an Amendment rather than a Revision and therefore requires a super majority vote of our State legislature. The second claims the Constitution is now in conflict with itself.

People are prepared to argue all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States, if necessary, to not only challenge the premise of Proposition 8, but also to advance and protect the following guiding principles

1. 1.No Constitutional amendment process should allow for Tyranny of the Majority;
   

2. 2.No Constitutional amendment should contradict fundamental principles of equality;
   

3. 3.No Constitutional amendment should eliminate rights;
   

4. 4.No State Constitution should live in contradiction to the United States Constitution.
   

No matter what the outcome of these legal battles, win or lose, Californians and all Americans will learn from this process.

I cannot hide my disappointment—as a resident of California and Citizen of both the United States and Canada—on the outcome of Proposition 8. Unsurprisingly, at least six countries, including Canada, Belgium, Norway, Netherlands, South Africa, and Spain, recognize same-sex marriages, with at least fifteen more countries recognizing civil unions, with no signs of "moral decay." One day we will halt this tyrannical rule over a minority.

Children are not born intolerant of minorities.

They are taught it.

Respectfully,

Daniel Lanovaz

Los Gatos, California