hen most people think of which state will be the next to legalize same-sex marriage, they usually do not think of the red states. Blue state bastions like Rhode Island, New York, and California (again) immediately come to mind, but few would even consider the possibility in the Union’s most socially conservative states like Oklahoma, Louisiana, or Alabama—and certainly not Texas. That was, until October 1st, when a Dallas district judge ruled that two men married in Massachusetts had the right to get divorced in Texas.

The significance of the ruling goes beyond simply permitting divorce among same-sex couples married in other jurisdictions. Texas, like many other Southern states, has a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage and other formal same-sex unions. Gay divorce, unlike gay marriage, is not technically prohibited in the Texas Constitution, providing a legal “gray area” where judges can rule either way. However, the judge in this case, Justice Tena Callahan, ruled much more broadly, stating that the already-adopted constitutional ban on same-sex marriage is “unconstitutional.” Justice Callahan ruled that the ban on same-sex marriage in the Texas Constitution is incompatible with the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution.

But before we get our hopes up, we should keep in mind that Justice Callahan is politically liberal and donated thousands of dollars to the Democratic Party in 2008. Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott has already pledged to appeal the ruling. For this case to have a larger impact, it will need to reach the Texas Supreme Court, where all eight justices are Republican, five of which were appointed by anti-gay Governor Rick Perry. And because Texas Supreme Court justices run for re-election every six years, they’re more likely to try to appease their constituents by declaring the ban on same-sex marriage constitutional. Even so, judges are meant to be fair, and less partisan than politicians. They are guided not by policy or politics but by legal precedent. So perhaps it’s OK to be cautiously optimistic in this case.

Despite an uncertain future, this ruling still remains surprising, especially coming from a conservative state like Texas. In fact, it’s even more surprising when one looks at the history of Prop 8 in California. Unlike Justice Callahan, the Supreme Court of California was unwilling to declare its state’s ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional. In the court’s opinion, majority rules, and unfortunately, the majority denied fundamental rights to a minority group.

On the other hand, the Dallas case makes a much more interesting claim with possible national implications. It suggests that the only way to prevent gay marriage in Texas, and essentially anywhere else in the United States, is to repeal the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution. In other words, for Justice Callahan, institutions in our free society demand marriage equality for the LGBT community. Democracy doesn’t mean that 51 percent of the population can dictate the rights of the other 49 percent. Democracy sometimes means that the majority loses in favor of protecting the minority. This is hardly a new idea. Before the Civil Rights Movement, the majority (whites) thought it best to have whites and “coloreds” segregated. Brown v. Board of Education taught us that following the majority isn’t always fair. Similarly, a majority of Texans in this instance did not make a just decision when they voted on a constitutional ban against same-sex marriage in 2005.

I suspect that there will be some backlash amongst conservatives, who will accuse Justice Callahan of judicial activism. But I do not believe that she was acting as an “activist” in this case. She merely stated an honest opinion protecting LGBT people from the tyranny of the majority. A democratic society like ours cannot thrive unless the majority loses from time to time. In the case of marriage rights, the majority’s concession affords LGBT Americans the rights they duly deserve, even in as conservative a state as Texas.