Prop 8 Properly Upheld

3 comments

Tuesday this week (May 26, 2009) the California Supreme Court upheld the ban on gay marriage in their state.  It was the right decision.  And I’ll tell you why.

Regardless of whether or not you think gay “marriage” should be legal there, it is not the place of the court to legislate that from the bench.  That’s not how our system was set up.  And it’s a dangerous trend that many courts seem to be moving in that direction. It means the destruction of our entire governmental system. You know…that whole “checks and balances” thing.

The people of California amended their constitution last year when they voted to define marriage as between a man and a woman (which has never needed such a clarification until now since it has always been obvious).  The court is there to interpret that constitution. Period.  The people spoke and didn’t want to redefine marriage so they put it in their constitution that way.  If the people want to vote again in the future and amend that decision, they can do so.  But that is how it must be decided.  Not by a handful of judges.

That’s how it has happened in a number of states already.  The people voted and now they recognize a different definition of the word marriage than the rest of us.  That is their right as a state.  This is how our Union was set up.  The U.S. Constitution does not define marriage.  Therefore it is left up to the states to decide on their own.

What is unjust is when a court denies that right of deciding to the people of a state – like the court recently did in Massachusetts.  The court said “no, we won’t even allow the people to decide.  We know what is best.”  But the court has no place doing that.  We must work to maintain the integrity of our governmental system and get activist judges off the bench.

These judges actually got it right this time in California.  And every American, no matter which side of the issue you’re on, should be happy about that.

Some in Hollywood sounded off on the issue.  Their comments reveal exactly the kind of misunderstanding of the issue (whether by intention or by ignorance) that runs rampant in popular media and therefore in pop culture.

In California, this matter has nothing to do with “separate but equal” or the denial of any so called civil right. Nothing.  And I discuss that here if anyone is interested in that dimension of the issue.

I imagine many states will move ahead and recognize some kind of same-sex “marriage” in the coming years.  A few already have.  More will surely follow.  Others will do as California has done and recognize it as between a man and a woman.  Whether or not you agree with them or not is your right.  But no matter which way it is ruled, we must do so with respect to our system of government. If we lose that, then we lose all basis for advancing any cause lawfully and therefore effectively.

If we want to advance respect for true sacramental marriage, then we need to educate people in a loving and experiential way.  The best way to do that is to increase good examples of true sacramental marriages.  For those of us who are married, are we living in a way that shows how marriage is different than a same-sex union?  Is God at the center?  Are we open to life?  Do we embrace the life-giving miracle that is at the heart of real marriage?  Do we even consider ‘divorce’?  Do we model our relationship with our family after that of the trinity?  Do we treat our spouse as Christ treats his Church?

How can we possibly sit back and argue that marriage is so different if we don’t treat it as such?  How can we possibly do that if we accept divorce as an option for a sacrament that only God can put asunder?  How can we rant on about the miracle of the family and the co-creation of human life with God Himself if we toss it aside with contraception, sterilization, and abortion?

If we do all of that, then we haven’t a marriage to defend in the first place.  All that is left is a civil contract.  And that civil contract can be between a man and a woman.  Or it can be between two men or two women.  It can be about a partnership of some kind in life.  Or it can be about owning a piece of property.  It can be between 3 people or a company and a person.  It can be between a child and an adult.  It can be about how many gumballs somebody must give somebody else every year for the rest of their lives.  It can be broken and made null.  It doesn’t matter.  It’s just a civil contract.

Marriage is something entirely different.  Why somebody would want to change that definition is just counter productive to the use of language.  Still, in our country, people have the right to do it.  Judges don’t.  If we want people to make the right decisions on it, we’ve got to show them how marriage is truly something entirely different and fundamentally incompatible with any kind of same-sex union. And it’s not so by any choice of ours, but by the very nature of what it is.

3 comments Add comment

Simon Dodd May 29, 2009 at 9:57 am

There’s another reason why it was the right call, one only alluded to obliquely in your post, Matthew. In these cases, although the California Supreme Court obscured its holding under a blizzard of largely irrelevant prose, the court was not even called on to decide the substantive question of whether same-sex marriage ought to be legal. That was the elephant in the room, of course, and the outcome was going to bear on that question, but that wasn’t the issue for decision. Rather, these cases asked purely legal process questions, chief among them whether Proposition 8 was an amendment to the CA Constitution, which can be done by initiative, or a revision of the same, which can’t. A century-long line of caselaw floodlights the distinction and dividing lines between those two kinds of change, and it was so clear under those cases that the challenge had to fail that even the judicial activists who decided the Marriage Cases couldn’t find a way around it.

Joshua Israel May 29, 2009 at 9:27 pm

Yes you are right! However, there is something people have over looked; because, a cheating practice was slowly enforced upon us for the past 100 years, disguised as modernization, and now most people cannot even recognize it. Gay and lesbian AUTHORITIES were the one’s who spear-headed the women’s liberation movement, and their influence on the elite in society did encourage governmental authorities to shatter the traditional family, take away parental rights, and destroy the man as head of house hold, and as the sole provider for his family. Our own government DIMINISHED the man’s pay check and his EARNING capacity, so that both parents MUST neglect the child, and work for a paycheck, just to make financial ends meet. So, now that a man is no longer a PROVIDER and the head-of-house-hold, and now that both parents must struggle against economic SLAVERY that is designed to destroy the quality of life within the family, a gay man now rears his ugly immoral head and deems himself to be equal to the man who has had his prestige and recognition stripped away, by the influence of gays and lesbians. Therefore, homosexuals only use their equal rights to obtain a more effective, higher platform, to attack traditional Christian family values, and bring us down to their level of DIS-SATISFACTION. Now, after diminishing, and brought down into nothingness, and after heterosexual relationships have been corrupted with unhappiness and dis-satisfaction, a gay man accuses heterosexual

Joshua Israel May 29, 2009 at 9:36 pm

Now, after diminishment, and being brought down into nothingness, and after heterosexual relationships have been corrupted with unhappiness and dis-satisfaction, a gay man accuses heterosexuals of being bad parents, and claims that he can be a better parent. Here is REALITY, heterosexuals are in a life and death struggle against an immoral corruption campaign that is waged against them by homosexuals in positions of power and authority, in our own government, and most of us don’t even know it; YET, and this governmental oppression does damage our ability to be BETTER parents. What moral Christian people need to do is to make heterosexual parents aware of this immoral homosexual crusade against them, so that together, we will repel this homosexual corruption of human life. Therefore, whether you realize it or not, it is the destruction of man as head of household, and the recent attacks against modern liberated women, that has coerced people to enact Proposition-8; in California, and the majority of people support it because we have had enough of being robbed, diminished, and cheated by an immoral homosexual campaign against us. This matter is not about civil rights, it’s about the inalienable right to pursue happiness, as equally, as gays do in their sodomite life style.

Previous post:

Next post: