In 380 B.C., Plato outlined what he saw as the ideal form of societal rule in The Republic. His work suggests that a society with one philosopher king who always knows right from wrong is the most ideal, while a society with one tyrant is the least ideal and all the varying forms of democracy reside somewhere in between. Seeing as there is no such thing as a philosopher king (though many would have us believe otherwise), we must strive toward democracy, despite its flaws. Taking power away from the people and into a central regime borders on the scariest of all societies, and we must take every precaution to avoid doing so.

Last Wednesday, Texas' same-sex marriage ban was deemed unconstitutional by Orlando Garcia, a Texan U.S. federal judge. I rejoiced. Many people near to my heart fight passionately every day for such legal action. However, in discussing the issue several days later with a good friend, something was brought up that made me uneasy. A University of Texas poll in 2013 found only 37 percent of Texans support same-sex marriage. While it seemed like a victory for those of us who believe in the legalization of same-sex marriage, one judge, albeit a Texan, overruled the opinions of the majority of Texans. This borders on despotism and threatens democracy.

This ruling assumes that a value held by one particular culture can be held as objectively superior to that of another culture; in other words, the values of liberal America can trump those of conservative America. This isn't to say that I don't believe in judicial review, because rulings must be made that won't be ideal for everyone. But it is not just for the beliefs of a majority to be suppressed by those of a minority (or just one man in this instance). Imagine how egregious it would be if it were the opposite way-if the Massachusetts government were overly conservative and overruled our legalization of same-sex marriage. We would be outraged and protest such a tyranny. But this ruling is no different.

Some will say that same-sex marriage is different because we, the liberals, have the "right" or "good" decision in mind while the other side has the "bad" or "wrong" decision. Such a statement is presumptuous, arrogant and impossible to prove. What is the better or worse position? Maybe a philosopher king would know, but how could we? If a majority of people in Massachusetts support same-sex marriage, we all agree that it is only right for us to be able to legalize it. But if a majority of people in Texas don't support it, how can we say they have to abide by what we believe?

It is taboo in many religions, like Hinduism, to slaughter cattle. But how would we, as Americans, react if told we could no longer slaughter cattle? Even if we agreed that slaughtering cattle en mass is wrong, we would still not react well to having another culture's values superimposed over our own. So who are we to superimpose our culture onto Texas' culture?
Some will say that same-sex marriage is different because legalizing it is about granting freedom, whereas a ban on it represents oppression. But liberals demanding same-sex marriage on the premise of liberty is hypocritical. Neither mainstream conservatives nor liberals prioritize freedom or liberty. Mainstream liberals, for instance, restrict freedoms surrounding economics, guns and even free speech in the instance of "hate speech," while mainstream conservatives restrict freedoms surrounding same-sex marriage and abortion. Neither side can claim to endorse policies that wholeheartedly support liberty. 

Additionally, the heart of social change, in my opinion, is not in policy. Although the 13th amendment was issued in 1865 banning slavery, neither racism or even legal inequality were gone 40 years later, or even now. Late 19th century educator, reformer and former slave Booker T. Washington urged the black population to accept discrimination for the time being and to cultivate the respect of whites through education, craft and hard work. 

He believed that a strictly policy-based approach was contrived at best and would not result in any real change in people (even if the change happened legally). People change people. And people change legislature. But legislature does not change people. In other words, I don't believe that Texas will legalize same-sex marriage unless the social movement comes from within Texas.

While this sounds frustrating to accept, patience is the only way. Any other course of action, such as assuming our beliefs are superior and pushing them on other people, risks a tyrannical society whose values are determined by the side with the most power, rather than by the inhabitants of that society. While this instance of overruling Texas would happen to benefit us this time around-what if it didn't? I'd rather embrace a flawed democracy than risk a tyrant.
*