If you have been living under a rock for the past week, you may not know that a federal judge struck down Nebraska’s ban on same-sex marriage. Judge Joseph Batallion ruled that it was a “gender-specific infringement of the equal rights of its citizens.”

I am not gay, however same-sex marriage rights is an issue that I feel strongly about. It is sad that our state denied homosexuals the right to wed for so long, and it is even sadder that our government is appealing the ruling.

Yes, I know the issue of gay marriage is bigger than a marriage license. It involves children, benefits to the partner, etc. But the bigger issue with this is the way the government, including Westside alum and Nebraska Governor Pete Ricketts and Attorney General Doug Peterson, have conducted themselves.

In the year 2000, Nebraskans voted to amend the Nebraska constitution to define marriage as between one man and one woman. Yes, this actually happened. And here is Ricketts’s statement about the federal judge’s lift on the ban in the context of that 2000 amendment.

“Today, a judge took steps to overturn a constitutional amendment approved by 70 percent of Nebraskans that defines marriage as between one man and one woman. The definition of marriage is an issue for the people of Nebraska, and an activist judge should not substitute his personal political preferences for the will of the people. I will continue to work with Attorney General Doug Peterson to uphold Nebraska’s Constitution and the will of the people of our great state.”

Yes, Pete Ricketts is factual when he says that in 2000 Nebraskans voted for this to happen. But Ricketts is now using this 70 percent figure as a scare tactic to try and sway the public to his side on marriage rights. 2000 was 15 years ago. 70 percent of voters 15 years ago voted for this amendment, not 70 percent of Nebraskans now.

Do you know how much the voting population has changed in 15 years? To start, people who were 3 years old in 2000 can vote now. Not to mention the many people who may have passed away in the same period. The voting public today is highly different, and according to an Omaha World-Herald opinion poll this week 54 percent of Nebraskans now oppose gay marriage.

Yes, that is still larger than 50 percent. But seriously, Gov. Ricketts, at least use some up-to-date statistics. I know it was the last year for a vote, so it’s the last year to get voting statistics. But we live in 2015. Get new statistics. I would bet my paycheck for the rest of my life that 70 percent of people do not still oppose gay marriage.

Regardless, the Omaha World-Herald poll showed that the trend is of decreasing opposition to legalization of same-sex marriage. In a couple years, that number will go below 50 percent and probably even lower.

But the real issue to me is the fact that Gov. Ricketts is only using past voting statistics and population to defend his stance on gay marriage. I don’t think anyone should care whether or not 99 percent of people support a side of an issue if it is something that is wrong. At one time, 70 percent of people supported slavery. That seems like pretty bad reasoning why it was allowed for a time.

I get that the purpose of government is to represent the people who live inside of the area that is being governed, but even the founding fathers knew this wouldn’t work all the time. The founding fathers called it the tyranny of the majority. They feared that the majority would wind up with too much power and use it to oppress certain peoples of the population. They feared that the majority would be able to become a tyrant or despot of some sort.

The founding fathers tried to prevent this by setting up a government with three main branches. They set up the executive branch, the legislative branch and the judicial branch. The executive branches purpose is to enforce laws, the legislative to make laws and represent the people and the judicial to make sure that those laws and the enforcement of those laws is constitutional.

Yes, Gov. Ricketts is right, marriage rights is an issue for the people of the state of Nebraska, but the courts also have a right to decide if that law is constitutional or not.

So I ask you, Gov. Ricketts, what was the judge supposed to do? Should he always rule in favor of the majority? If you believe that, what is the point of having the judge? Or should he rule how he believes the Constitution of the United States of America wants him to act (In other words, acting how a judge should act)?

I don’t care if Gov. Rickets and Attorney General Peterson want to appeal the decision made by Judge Batallion. That is every bit within their constitutional and legal rights. What I do care about is knowingly trying to persuade voters and citizens of the state of Nebraska using old, out-of-date statistics and scare tactics such as calling the judge activist to generate support for his own political preferences. I do care about the deceit that Ricketts is knowingly using to further his campaign.

And so, Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, do the right thing. Don’t just vote for the majority of the people; keep the minority in mind. Keep the minority in mind, because it is how the United States has always worked. We are a country that guarantees life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Not just to the majority, but to the minority as well.