I have read about California's Supreme Court (or the CSC's) decision overturning Proposition 22's proscription of gay marriage and provision for civil unions. Proposition 22 was an endeavor by the people of California to preserve the admittedly traditional view of marriage as a legal union between a man and a woman, while providing all of marriage's legal and economic benefits to same-sex, or civil unions. What "gets" me about the CSC's decision was its sweeping dismissal of the traditional view of marriage, despite Prop 22's bending over backwards to confer every economic benefit to same-sex unions. The only way that the CSC could pull this off was by playing legal "peek-a-boo" with both California's constitution and legal precedent, by focusing solely on Proposition 22. In essence, the CSC's decision on this matter was disingenuous, amateurishly-considered, and exemplary of raw judicial fiat.

In reacting to the CSC's decision to legalize gay marriage, many of its apologists made much of the "tyranny of the majority" argument. This argument states that even though 61% of the Californian electorate voted for Proposition 22 in 2000, the lives of 39% of the electorate are somehow being suppressed by the "tyranny" of the 61. However, to make this argument, these apologists gave even less consideration to Prop. 22's civil union provisions than the CSC did - no mean feat! Further, these opponents of the "tyranny of the majority" played "peek-a-boo" with an even more egregious form of political despotism: the tyranny of the minority.