Soon, the legal battle over the constitutionality of Proposition 8, which restricted the definition of marriage to a legal union between a man and a woman, will be revisited. Californians narrowly passed this proposition in 2008. But a few months ago, a federal judge struck down the ban on same-sex marriage as unconstitutional. Arguments for and against sustaining this judicial decision will be made.

It is too soon to predict what will happen to Proposition 8. Some argue that the courts should simply follow public opinion. After all, as one popular slogan notes, "It's we the people, not we the courts." Of course, had the courts followed this principle with regard to interracial marriage, it is hard to tell how long it would have taken to remove anti-miscegenation laws from the books. Remember, after all, that about 40% of the voters in South Carolina and Alabama voted as late as 1998 and 2000, respectively, to keep bans on interracial marriage in their state constitutions, even though the bans cannot be legally enforced.

Sothe simple question is should the laws be changed to recognize "a married couple" as any union between two adults without regard to their gender, or, should we only recognize "marriage" as a union between a man and a woman?