With the progression of time comes the progression of a society. It is almost Lockean — when the rights of the people are overlooked in some manner, the people and government is bound to become more liberal to include the desires of the masses.

It can be seen as early as the thirteenth century with the passing of the Magna Carta. The British people were being subjected to increased taxes to fund the King’s war with France. The commoners were subjected to the ramifications of John’s fight with the Church, ultimately leading to the monarch banning the practicing of religion. The commoners were subjected to the sadness of useless military deaths and the King’s persecution of enemies without the existence of habeas corpus. Things changed. A revolt took place, and King John was forced to sign the world-famous, society-changing document in 1215.

The United States has seen similar issues on the top of its hill as recent as 40 years ago pertaining to race. One of the most-famous Americans of all time, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. spawned out of the irrational white superiority in the late-twentieth century. In the early 1960’s, protests came into the streets like worms out of the dirt on a wet day.

Throughout the country, but particularly in the Southern East Coast, Black Americans held rallies and peaceful protests to establish their point. Dr. King would use his fantastic oration to rouse progressive whites and minorities, and actions like sit-ins and sit-outs helped to spread the message that is seen so vividly today — Blacks, Whites, Asians, Mexicans, Africans, whoever, are all the same.

But, while our collective American bigotism was crippled in the 1960’s with the passages of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Civil Rights Act of 1965, and other meaningful documents of equality, we still allowed a small part of our disease to fester and eventually take control of our minds just forty years later.

On May 16, 2008, the California Supreme Court handed down a 4-3 decision reversing the decade-old adage that only opposite-sexed couples could marry. It was a happy time in California, as the state, arguably considered one of the most progressive in the Union, allowed all people to be happy. Couples from all over the nation flocked to the state to take their wedding vows under a new, better law.

Yet, less than six months later, the ecstasy enjoyed by man gay and lesbian couples in California was pulled from them faster than it came to be. Proposition 8, a doctrine that would reverse the Supreme Court decision made earlier that year, was added to California ballots for the November 4 election. Not surprisingly, the proposition passed, and the continually blue state showed a hint of red, despite for their overwhelming support of President-elect Barack Obama.

There are two major problems with the passing of the proposition. One regards the political siding and processes of the election, the other, strictly on a moral basis.

Shortly after the passing of the bill, an incensed media around the States went to work to figure out just what exactly went wrong. When researching the support of the proposition, one interesting statistic couldn’t be ignored. One statistic shows that, at the time when the Proposition had about $30 million of support, over $15 million was directed from devout members of the Mormon Church.

Talk about the separation of church and state.

It is a right of the American political system for any person to support a candidate or bill monetarily or otherwise, regardless of their political, religious, or social affiliations. But at what point can the two no longer be separated? When is the line drawn between a party being supported by a religion or a religion being supported by a party?

The infiltration and backing of Proposition 8 by the right wing is disappointing to the progression of our country. Where the conservatives naturally want to keep the country in its current state, progression is needed for the betterment of all people and eventually the nation as a whole. When straight bigotism and relaxed hooliganism take a part of politics, Americans should be not only ashamed, but frightened. Bigotism should not be accepted in the twenty-first century.

Another issue I have with this proposition is its interference with the Supreme Court. At what point do the people have the right to make a responsible social decision? We elect leaders who are supposed to represent us well, but do so in a rational manner.

The Supreme Court is intended to be the ultimate decider on Constitutionality and whether a spoken issue should be allowed in the United States. Those selected to be justices aren’t slouches — they are often the smartest law scholars in the nation. If this be true, how can we allow the people to make a “better” decision than the Supreme Court? How can the uneducated masses be seen as a better representation of the American dream than those who have studied it for a living?

If the Supreme Court ruled for Black rights in 1964 and immediately after the people were allowed to vote to overrule it, we’d still be drinking from different water fountains to this day. Because it was a small minority versus a large, hate-filled majority, such a repeal would have come in days. But, when we let our nation’s smartest advisers, like Lyndon B. Johnson, make the best decisions for our nation we are often better-off.

The other issue with Proposition 8 has nothing to do with legality or constitutionality, but rather morality. I believe Keith Olbermann noted on his MSNBC show Countdown that just forty years ago, nearly a third of the states in the U.S. had laws on the books prohibiting a Black from marrying a White. He then continued to add that, legally, Barack Obama’s parents would have had a problem marrying in a good portion of the United States because of it.

In current days, we’d think a ban on interracial marriage would be ludicrous. But a half-century ago, to many Americans it was an impact of morality to, have you heard this one before? Preserve the sanctity of marriage.

The same argument played out back then, but now we look it over and argue, “how stupid!” Blacks and Whites and Mexicans and Asians and everybody else are all the same, how could we be so narrow-minded?

Proposition 8 is essentially a restatement of the bans against interracial marriage, except instead it is directed toward gays and lesbians. In 2050, this will all seem crazy to us and we will be battling another issue that seems light-years away right now.

But on a pure level of compassion toward our fellow man. How could we stay so blinded? How could all the Western nations around us be so accepting, while we are using airline eye-shades? Massachusetts, ironically, is the American City Upon a Hill, while the rest of the nation is watching the Bostonian plateau in disgust.

In fact, the most disgusting thing is our disgust. Gays and straights are no different from one another. Our somatic cells have 46 chromosomes, our gametes have 23. Our hair is brown, their hair is brown. We have ten toes, they have ten toes. Yet, our love is different than their love? The way we feel is better and more-correct than theirs?

We are Americans. We collectively make up the final hope on earth, the last hope for happiness and freedom for all. Yet, if your sexual proclivity doesn’t line up, you’re left out.

The gays and lesbians wouldn’t ruin the sanctity of marriage. In reality, that sanctity is all but lost now, as nearly fifty percent of the current marriages end in divorce. The best way to protect the sanctity of marriage is to ban divorce, not to ban love. From what I have seen, gays and lesbians share a much deeper love than many straight couples. Yet, it isn’t the same.

If we as Americans had any compassion, any reason, any intelligence, we’d recognize the absurdity of our actions. If there is any hope to be held, we can stay assured that the American bigotism will eventually come to an end, just as the cycles of history predict it to.