Dear Editor,’ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ In regards to Giles Howard’s Nov. 12 column, ‘Prop. 8 a step back… Dear Editor,’ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ In regards to Giles Howard’s Nov. 12 column, ‘Prop. 8 a step back for civil rights,’ I can only express a great dismay at what he perceives to be a ‘civil rights’ violation on the part of the people of California. Howard insists that the Obama administration, coupled with the Supreme Court, which Howard hopes will be transformed by Obama’s judicial picks, must right the ‘injustice.’ ‘ ‘ ‘ For starters, the legal benefits of marriage are no more ‘rights’ as is the ‘right’ to chew gum. Just because someone has the legal license to do something does not always mean someone who does not is inferior. Citizens younger than 16 in Pennsylvania are no less human even though they cannot drive. No right to marriage or marriage-defining power is spelled out by the Constitution. Therefore, any decision on the legality of marriage is left to the states to decide via the Tenth Amendment, which is exactly what California did. ‘ ‘ ‘ Howard asserts that the Supreme Court must overturn this ruling, implying that the Court must implement social change with the truncheon of federal power. Such an overturning of a state’s sovereign right to define marriage would further solidify the Supreme Court as an oligarchy rather than as an instrument for judicial review. If the gay rights movement believes its conception of equality as espoused by gay marriage is so fundamental to human dignity, let them propose an amendment to the Constitution and let the states have at it. Philip DiCicco School of Arts And Sciences