Thus, the U.S. District Court’s ruling on Proposition 8 should be viewed as a victory for secularism and recognition of the rightful divide between the private and public spheres of human life — the former being the one in which the state should have no hand.

Whether an individual wishes to marry a person of the same sex or the opposite sex is a matter of concern between the prospective consenting partners. Such an action is of importance only in two individuals’ private sphere of life. The only point where the decision affects anything at all in the public sphere is when the state follows through on rights and protections granted to married couples.

Respect and recognition of the divide between the private and public spheres is one of the key elements of the modern secular state. This notion finds support in many parts of the U.S. Constitution and its amendments, in particular the First Amendment.

The First Amendment clearly states that the U.S. government cannot pass any laws establishing a national religion or giving preference to one faith over another. Preventing gay marriage would do exactly that. The founders of this nation were well aware of the private-public divide and the issues upon which the government rightfully could act. Same-sex marriage is not one of them.

The notion that same-sex marriage is morally wrong is essentially a religious conclusion. By proceeding from such a conclusion and enacting laws that, in essence, recognize the correctness of that opinion, the U.S. government would be integrating a theological argument into its constitutionally-mandated secular legal structure. Previously passed laws such as the Federal Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, of 1996 openly violate these provisions of the Constitution.

In fact, the section of DOMA that federally defined marriage as being between a man and a woman recently was struck down by a federal district court in July. Any attempt to force a personally held opinion about private life onto others while turning a private issue into a public one must be challenged and defeated whenever and wherever it appears. The repeal of Proposition 8 and Section 3 of DOMA are excellent indicators of progress on these problems.

The moral majority must not be allowed to exert their will and opinion on the minority simply because they are the temporal holders of legislative power.

Additionally, prohibition of same-sex marriage violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Equal Protection Clause establishes exactly what it sounds like — equal protection for all persons before the law.

Denying homosexuals the state-recognized right to marriage would fly in the face of this provision. The amendment was used in the past to defeat anti-interracial marriage laws that existed in certain states into the 1960s. We find ourselves in a similar struggle over marriage now.

I understand that certain collective moral precepts, like democracy, secularism and equality, can be considered just as subjective or private as a conception of marriage, but the fact that these three concepts form the foundation for rational political discourse and decision making must be recognized.

The boundaries between the realms of the private and public must be acknowledged as well. The will of some people as expressed through the government should be constrained by these “objective” political paradigms.

For the time being, they have won over misguided desires to force one group’s opinion upon the other. Hopefully, when these issues go before the Supreme Court, they will triumph again.

Matt Korovesis is a State News guest columnist. Reach him at koroves1@msu.edu.