The recent decision of California voters to reject gay marriage has once again sparked the gay marriage debate. It is surprising that California, of all the states, would vote against gay marriage. One side applauds the decision, saying that homosexuality is immoral. The other side sees the decision as violating the rights of gays. But something we should recognize is that for once gay marriage was decided by the people, not just a few liberal judges.

I view the California decision as a triumph for states’ rights. The California voters did not want gay marriage, and voted accordingly. That is their right. The law should reflect the will of the people. If it doesn’t, then we are not a country of the people, by the people, for the people. The California decision merely shows that the people are not quite ready for gay marriage. In time, their liberality will overturn the decision. It should be the voters’ liberality, not a judge’s liberality, that determines the law.

States’ rights is a wonderful doctrine. What one state does is law for only that state. What is good for California or Oregon might not be good for us. Matters like this should be decided on a state by state basis. That way if California enacts a bad law, then it is a bad law for California only.

The gay marriage question should be left to the people, not the courts, but already there are three cases going to the California courts to overturn the recent decision. What use is there in voting when judges just overrule our votes? That is not the democratic society I envision.

SHAUN HOLT