California voters are called upon to decide whether they will vote to enshrine discrimination into the Constitution by eliminating the right of a specific class of people to marry, or to accept that maybe, just maybe, the justices of the California Supreme Court know more about the law, and the application of the Constitution, than they do. Few, if any, of the people I have met in my life can name "The Four Freedoms" let alone know what the purpose of a judicial branch of government is.

In our "tripartite" form of government, the branches (remember? executive, legislative, judicial?) are separate but co-equal. No one branch of government has the power to override another, with the possible exception of the judicial branch of government where interpretation of the Constitution is involved. Ah! There we have it. The way to circumnavigate the decisions made by those who have spent their lives learning and applying the law is to gather together enough people to amend a constitution to get what they want, whether it is fair or not, whether it is right or not.

I have never heard the terms "activist judges" or "legislating from the bench" applied in any instance where a court made a decision to limit the application of the laws in a conservative and exclusive fashion. It is only when judges construe constitutions inclusively that these terms are used. In other words, an "activist judge" is one who rules in a fashion with which the complainer does not agree.

It is only when one remembers that the executive and legislative branches of government are controlled by the majority that the most important aspect of the judicial branch of government comes into play; protection of the minority from the vagaries and whims of the majority. You see, the majority get to ram through any legislation or Constitutional amendment that they want. They have the power to affect each and every aspect of an individual's life. Left unchecked, serious infringements of fundamental rights can result. The men and women of the judiciary are there to protect everyone's rights, not just those of the [current] majority.

Realizing all of the above (and accepting it for its truth) should make the decision to vote no on Proposition 8 that much easier for California voters. It is not about your personal opinion, your neighbor's or your pastor's, it is about equal protection of the laws, an issue already decided by the highly qualified justices of the California Supreme Court.

Laura Grant, a native Californian, now lives in Carson City, Nev.