Prop 8 unconstitutional? We'll know soon.

Yesterday, the California Supreme Court heard oral arguments on whether or not Proposition 8, the ballot measure that banned same-sex marriage in California last November, is constitutional.

The Washington Post describes the angle taken by opponents of Prop 8:

Gay rights advocates are urging the court to overturn the ban, approved in November as Proposition 8, on the grounds it was put before voters improperly, or at least prematurely. Under state law, the legislature must approve significant constitutional changes before they can go on the ballot.

Interestingly, leading the battle in favor of the discriminatory Prop 8 is Ken Starr, who, as special prosecutor a decade ago, led the investigation into Bill Clinton's private sexual business. (Gotta wonder what kinds of deeply entrenched personal issues drive Mr. Starr's obsession and judgmentalism regarding other people's sex lives.)

So will Starr succeed in this latest crusade? Will this set a precedent on which the civil rights of any group could be subject to the whim of a fired-up sanctimonious voting majority?

The Court will rule on whether or not it is constitutional. But perhaps the more important question is whether or not it is right. And discrimination never is.