When our founding fathers wrote the Constitution, the fear of a tyrannical government was very real. In order to ensure “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” the power of centralized government had to be restrained. As a response to this challenge, federalism – the distribution of power to individual states – was born.

Today, federalism is seen in a variety of ways, most notably in divergent state laws concerning gun control, capital punishment and same-sex marriage.

But what happens when states begin to move backward, passing laws against freedom and toward tyranny? After all, if state referendums were held in the South during the civil-rights era, freedom and equality for blacks never would have had a chance.

In the past few months, both Sen. John Kerry and President Bush have advocated letting states decide on the issue of same-sex marriage. But while supporters of gay rights have seen the Massachusetts same-sex marriage ruling as progressive, what is their opinion of Louisiana, which recently passed a state referendum banning same-sex marriages and civil unions?

Louisiana is just one of 12 states with similar measures on state ballots this year. And while we’re concerned about the possibility that more states could join the disturbing trend of banning same-sex marriage, we reluctantly agree that leaving it up to the states is the only realistic option.

Truthfully, same-sex marriage should be legalized across the country. Anything less is a violation of a citizen’s basic rights. What use is a marriage license if it isn’t recognized in all 50 states? And how are civil unions any different from the “separate but equal” policies established during the era of segregation?

Nevertheless, we understand that such a law would be impossible to pass in our current, divisive political climate. Even President Bush’s proposed amendment to define marriage as the union between a man and a woman easily was defeated last month.

While we believe banning same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, allowing states to decide on the issue at least opens the door to progressive rulings similar to those found in Vermont and Massachusetts. By allowing some states to rule in favor of same-sex marriages, the misguided notion that a sudden rash of homosexuality might develop or that traditional marriage might be undermined would be invalidated.

At a fundamental level, do residents of Louisiana have the right to ban same-sex marriage by referendum? Not if you take into consideration the importance of minority rights and the tendency for citizens to be afraid of what they don’t know or don’t understand.

But in the spirit of social progress, federalism likely is the only way to ensure that the movement for same-sex rights continues in a positive direction.