In 2008, millions of California voters passed Proposition 8, a controversial ballot measure which legally defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman. This summer, a decision is expected in the case of Perry v. Schwarzenegger, a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Prop 8. Final arguments were heard on June 16 by Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker, and now all there is to do is wait.

During final arguments, Charles Cooper, attorney for the proponents of Prop 8, argued that marriage exists “to provide society’s approval … to the actual production of children.” Walker challenged Cooper on the reasoning behind that statement (namely the point that heterosexual couples without the ability to procreate are still allowed to wed). Theodore Olson, who represents the gay and lesbian couples who filed suit, claimed the passing of Prop 8 was driven by some “irrational or dark motive, some animus, some kind of bigotry.” Cooper called Olson’s words a “slur” on the voters who approved the measure and the judges who have since upheld it.

What are at stake in Perry v. Schwarzenegger are the rights of the minority in America, one of the foundations upon which our Constitution rests; rule of the majority and rights of the minority are the guiding principles of the modern democracy. When it comes to Justice Walker’s ultimate decision, some have speculated the real deciding factor will be whether or not sexual orientation should be defined as a matter of “suspect classification” alongside race, age, religion or income level. If Walker sees sexual orientation as akin to race or religion, then he should not be able to hold Prop 8 as constitutional. If, for some reason, he cannot denote sexual orientation as such, then the roughly 18,000 same-sex marriages which have taken place in California will be invalidated.

If that happens, it will be a tragedy not only for members of the LGBTQ community, and not only for Californians, but for any American who holds the rights of the minority as important. Clearly Walker has already seen through the defense of marriage as a social “right to procreate” certificate, and truly any other arguments against same-sex marriage and acceptance have been motivated by vague, religious (read: irrelevant) reasoning which have no place in a country which is still working to earn its title as the land of the free.