“The surface of American society is covered with a layer of democratic paint,” Alexis de Tocqueville once said. “But from time to time one can see the old aristocratic colors breaking through.”

In California, though, we’re not seeing aristocratic colors showing through; these are hues more similar to despotism or tyranny.

The continuing trial of Proposition 8 in California is evidence that the true color of democracy is being peeled away by a few wealthy lobbyists who are bolstering their strength to overturn the vote of 7 million Californians to define marriage.

Almost as soon as it passed in Nov. 2008, Proposition 8 was challenged as unconstitutional. Despite enormous pressure, however, the Supreme Court of California did not usurp power and overturn the democratic vote of the people. In fact, they upheld Proposition 8 as constitutional in May 2009, while still considering marriage licenses issued to same-sex partners as valid.

As expected, this caused a problem. Days before the court released its verdict, two lawyers who were formerly pitted against each other in the Bush v. Gore case in 2000, Ted Olson and David Boies, filed an injunction demanding marriage rights be reinstated for same-sex couples in California. The will of the voters had not changed. But activists had loosed their purse strings and filed a lawsuit.

In essence, those with a lot of gold are trying to rewrite the very law the people of California endorsed by an overwhelming margin.

Oral arguments for the trial, which just commenced on January 11 in San Francisco, will probably last three to four weeks, according to many media sources.

Either way the judge rules, the case will most likely end up before the U.S. Supreme Court. According to The Huffington Post, Ted Olson said he hopes that a hearing before the highest court in the land will be the end result.

Here, there, or anywhere — this case could change the fabric of America. If this small group of activists is successful in deleting this constitutional amendment in California, voters will lose their right to participate in the democratic process and society will lose the most important institution that ensures that children have a mom and dad — marriage.

Marriage to some is just a package of legal benefits. To others, it is the fundamental institution on which a society is built. Comparing marriage rights to civil rights often gets the media spotlight. However, if sex is a behavior and race is a physical trait, can they truly be compared? Behaviors change, physical traits do not.

We each have our views on this case and the future of marriage in our nation. But in this case, democracy is being threatened. It is an undeniable fact. If this select group of activists is successful in suppressing the will of California citizens, we can expect to see that coat of democracy peel and give way to the rotting splinters of tyranny. The attorneys can whitewash it all they want — it still paints a bleak picture for the future of America.

Reach Catherine at Catherine.E.Smith@asu.edu