While the Obama-McCain face-off is dominating the national stage, in California an equally important drama is playing out. A 4-3 decision by the California Supreme Court in May made the state the second to recognize the legality of same-sex marriage. Opposition to this decision has built quickly, however, culminating in Proposition 8, a ballot initiative that would amend the state Constitution to prevent people of the same sex from marrying. To give gay couples the legal protections and respect they deserve, Californians should vote “No” on Prop 8.

As the Court announced in its decision, the right to marry is the “right of an individual to establish a legally recognized family with the person of one’s choice.” Though California law establishes little legal difference between domestic partnerships and marriage, an important symbolic difference does exist, as the thousands of gay couples that have been married since May recognize. There is no reason why this symbol of love and commitment should be refused for certain people based merely on the gender of their partner.

Unfortunately, many arguments mounted against same-sex marriage appeal implicitly to a morality that exists beyond the scope of law. This lack of concrete rationale explains some of the baffling arguments that have been made in favor of Proposition 8. Its proponents in California’s Voter Information Guide, for example, invoke “human history” and utilize scare tactics as a defense of traditional marriage. “If the gay marriage ruling is not overturned,” they claim, “TEACHERS COULD BE REQUIRED to teach young children there is no difference between gay marriage and traditional marriage.” Prop 8 does not mention education, and the state education code makes it illegal to instruct children about marriage whose parents object.

Another source of criticism comes from the perception that the California Supreme Court’s May ruling was an abuse of power and should thus be invalidated. Proponents of the proposition argue that the ballot measure “overturns the outrageous decision of four activist Supreme Court judges who ignored the will of the people.” But the duty of the judge is to be objective and uninfluenced by the “will of the people.” In interpreting an admittedly ambiguous area of the Constitution, the judges did right to concern themselves with a principled, correct interpretation rather than be motivated or frightened by the likely public response. And the interpretation they chose–the protection of minority rights–is not only acceptable, but laudable.

A final criticism of the Court’s decision is that a majority of Californians do not approve of same-sex marriage, as evidenced by a 2000 ballot measure to recognize only heterosexual marriages. The ideological terrain has shifted since then, however—a July California Field Poll survey found that 51 percent of voters will likely vote against Prop 8. This Tuesday, voters will have the chance to express their opinions; the fact that they have never voted for same sex marriage before is not an argument for why they cannot now.

Gay rights are a perennial source of debate in California, but the rhetoric used on both sides is now reaching near-apocalyptic levels. In such a large and influential state, whatever voters do to alter the Constitution has a sense of permanency and importance. But although the most money and vocal opposition has been poured into California, it is not the only state with a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage on the table. Both Arizona’s Proposition 102 and Florida’s Amendment 2 raise similar choices. Voters should give the thumbs down to all of these propositions, and give gay couples all the legal protection and respect they deserve.