Gay marriage advocates in California were disappointed yet again Thursday with the reversal of a San Francisco judge's ruling against the state's ban on same-sex marriage. The ruling by the state 1st District Court of Appeals reflected the mentality of many gay-marriage opponents, stating that it was up to the state Legislature, not the judiciary, to determine the definition of marriage. Left to public opinion, however, it seems that legalizing same-sex marriage is a long way off. Given current trends and the success of state ballot initiatives, it's clear that much of America isn't "ready" for same-sex marriage. But waiting the necessary decades for public opinion to come around, as the court alluded to, isn't acceptable so long as a group of citizens are denied not only the right to marry, but equal protection under the law as well.

In last week's decision, the court argued: "The time may come when California chooses to expand the definition of marriage to encompass same-sex unions. That change must come from democratic processes, however, not by judicial fiat." In giving unjustified credence to the unsubstantiated claim that many judges engage in "judicial activism," the court handed the power to determine who is granted equal protection under state law to the people of California. But one has to question how "democratic" the democratic processes the court promotes truly are. Ballot proposals, which spawned the gay marriage bans in the first place, are frequently misleading. The gay marriage ban in Michigan was also fraught with misleading statements and ads. In short, sometimes the democratic processes gay-marriage opponents urge their counterparts to pursue are less than perfectly fair.

Even if such ballot initiatives were a true gauge of majority public opinion, that should not mean that in this case the majority should rule. Prohibiting a group of citizens from receiving the legal, social and personal benefits of marriage appears on its face to violate their right to equal protection under the 14th Amendment. Until the U.S. Supreme Court rules that to be the case, however, challenges to gay-marriage bans may continue to be shot down in state and federal courts.

Because California has a domestic partner law that provides most of the same rights to gay couples as to married heterosexual couples, the marriage ban was ruled non-discriminatory. But this is not the case in other states where similar bans have passed - including Michigan, where repeated attempts to amend the state's civil rights law to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation have died in committee. Even in California, gay couples are still denied at least one right: the ability to marry as heterosexual couples do.

The California ruling is a self-admitted postponement of the inevitable, and the California Supreme Court would be more true to the Constitution if it overturns the ban. As it stands right now, gays in California and across the country are denied equal rights and equal protection. While millions of Americans wait for the general public and its representatives to come around without a legal avenue to prevent discrimination, it is up to activists to keep the momentum going in the fight for equal rights.