Yesterday, a California judge overturned Proposition 8, the voter-approved ban on gay marriage. Supposedly, a gay marriage ban is “unconstitutional”. I guess we all missed that right to marriage in the Constitution, huh?

Me, personally, I have another name for this: judicial tyranny.

A federal judge in California on Wednesday overturned the state’s ban on same-sex marriage, saying the voter-approved rule violated the constitutional rights of gays and lesbians.

The decision, issued by Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker in San Francisco, is an initial step in what will likely be a lengthy legal fight over California’s Proposition 8, which defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

At stake in the trial was whether California’s ban on same-sex marriage violated the constitutional rights to equal protection and due process of two gay couples that want to marry.

The case was watched closely by both supporters and opponents of same-sex marriage, as many say it is likely to wind its way up to the U.S. Supreme Court. If it does, the case could end in a landmark decision on whether people in the United States are allowed to marry people of the same sex.

Bill Jacobson has more on the ruling here, along with some interesting analysis. He notes that, since this case is likely to find its way to the Supreme Court, Elena Kagan is about to be tested. She swore, under oath, that there is no constitutional right to gay marriage. And that’s because there isn’t. You can read the full decision here.

Here’s the problem. You cannot legislate from the bench, and that’s what has been happening with gay marriage, over and over again. The simple fact of the matter is, there is no constitutional right to marriage — not for gay people, straight people, or any other people. Should gay marriage be legalized? Maybe, but that’s for the voters to decide. For a judge to just force it on Americans, against their will, is judicial tyranny. The fact of the matter is, this judge — and several judges before him — is legislating from the bench, and that should worry many people, whether you favor gay marriage or not. It may make gay marriage supporters happy, but they should perhaps take a step back and think about what they’re doing. They might get a victory in California, but what about the rest of the country? Achieving gay marriage this way, by forcing it down our throats, against our will, is just going to make people who are against gay marriage even more entrenched. California is one of the most liberal states in the country, and even they voted against gay marriage! So a judge basically went against the wishes of the people to make sure he was able to legislate from the bench and advance his own agenda. Proposition 8, like it or not, was passed democratically. Considering opposition to gay marriage is declining, there’s no reason to use tyrannical methods to get gay marriage legalized. As Allah points out, all this does is let gay marriage opponents claim that they were cheated out of a democratic victory — which they were. This is a huge P.R. loss for gay marriage.

On another note, Democrats should be worried about this. While opposition to gay marriage is indeed declining, the majority of Americans do still oppose it. We’re being hammered over the head with a liberal agenda over and over and over again, and considering that the United States is a center-right country, it’s understandably pissing people off. This is not the fault of Democrats in Congress, but will they pay for it in November? Maybe. Voters might still hold them accountable for trying to force this country to the left.

When all of this is over, in all likelihood, gay marriage won’t survive constitutionally. If there’s a way to get gay marriage passed, trying to do so through judicial tyranny not it. If this is the path gay marriage activists are about to start down on, then they’re likely to be in for a rude awakening. This could end up backfiring in their faces.

Next time, try to win in the court of public opinion.