Commentary: A pain-filled debate over Prop 8

It comes down to your perspective.

Many of us were fascinated by the spectacle of California Supreme Court justices debating the polarizing issue of gay marriage.

It reinforced our belief in the power of ideas argued with respect for the rule of law.

The passionate sometime spew bile when discussing Proposition 8 – the voter-approved initiative that bans same-sex marriage in California. But it was different when the matter was argued before the state's highest court.

"I have been blessed (with being) in the presence of popes, presidents, governors and royalty. (This) left me with a similar feeling of awe," said Frank Schubert, the Sacramento consultant who ran the successful Yes on Prop. 8 campaign. "Here I am with a front row seat, 20 feet from seven people in whom we entrust vast power, counting on them to exercise that power with wisdom. This is the ultimate personification of the 'consent of the governed.' "

It was, depending on your perspective.

In Placerville, Charlotte Higgins avoided the historic proceedings completely, even though she is married to another woman.

Thursday's hearing was about Higgins' life. Consequently, she couldn't watch in detached awe. She decided it would be impossible to marvel at legal theories directly related to her expression of love.

Honestly. These are extraordinary times.

Hollywood perverts the idea of marriage with pimped-up odes to matrimony – "Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire?"

To read the complete column, visit www.sacbee.com.

This story was originally published March 10, 2009 at 4:41 AM with the headline "Commentary: A pain-filled debate over Prop 8."