|
|
|
|
- The May 15, 2008 California Supreme Court ruling
legalizing gay marriage in the nation's most populous state almost
certainly means same-sex marriage will be an issue in this fall's
presidential campaign. We can't say that pleases us, but the California
court leaves the political culture little choice. When all is said and
done, the decision handed down is outrageous, not just because it
redefines marriage and, therefore, ultimately, the definition of what
has constituted “family” in this nation since inception, not to mention
thousands of years of western culture. It is outrageous because four
unelected robes effectively rescinded the ban on gay marriage and,
thereby, overturned the will of 61% of the California electorate —
4,618,673 of them to be precise — who voted in 2000 to preserve marriage in state law as the union of one man and one
woman. The essence of any democracy rests, ultimately, upon the right of
people to decide for themselves the moral rules that govern the nature
of the society in which they live. Without that power, they are living
under an oligarchy,
which this scenario amply demonstrates can be wrought in this country
through judicial tyranny. What’s more, anyone who thinks that the
watershed issue of same-sex marriage is ultimately about what consenting
adults do in the privacy of their bedrooms or a fundamental
constitutional right to marry whomever we fall in love or want to form a
family with, regardless of their gender, is being either naive,
misinformed, misled...or, simply, disingenuous.
|
We have no Catholic affiliation, but we urge you to view this special AirMaria
report regarding the status of religious liberty in America, relative
to the ongoing push by activist homosexual lobby groups for full
same-sex marriage rights in America. For indeed, anyone who does not
recognize or understand the inherent conflicts between same-sex marriage
rights being entrenched into law and our religious liberty — and, yes,
even our free speech rights — had best wake up and smell the stench of
what's festering right under our noses. Moreover, do not expect to be
objectively informed on the issues by a largely liberal media that keep
us distracted with trivial pursuits and inane drivel disguised as
entertainment. As we argued in our last few blog entries, much of the media are now so closely aligned with the LGBT agenda, or involved in heretic pursuits that there is no longer a discernible difference in their apparent
cohesive mission with respect to normalizing and legitimizing homosexual
behavi
The video references a March 26, 2007 debate within
the Connecticut Senate regarding raised House Bill 7395: An Act
Concerning Marriage Equality. It highlights the testimony of Brian
Brown, Executive director of the Family Institute of Connecticut, who
was grilled by the Senate Committee on the question of whether same-sex
marriage constitutes a civil right and, unbelievably, even the propriety
of his own religious convictions. Mr. Brown, quite rightly, stood his
ground and defended both traditional marriage and his religious
liberties in a very eloquent and courageous way. But, as the decision by
the California Supreme Court to declare as unconstitutional the state
ban on same-sex marriage so clearly demonstrates, the kind of
orchestrated assault to which Mr. Brown was subjected has not stopped at
the Connecticut state line. Indeed, this video presents a good
synthesis on what likely happened in the California Supreme Court debate
and decision-making process and, indeed, what is happening — and is
likely to happen — in state legislatures and judicial branches all over
the country.
Moreover, there can no longer be any question that our religious liberties are, indeed, under fire. Just ask Bishop Harry R. Jackson, Jr., whose Hope Christian Church is targeted for an unsolicited visit on May 25 by Soulforce, an activist homosexual lobby group, whose stated mission is to “cut off homophobia at its source — religious bigotry.” In their
attempt to encourage the inclusion of gay families in churches, Soulforce has targeted for similar visits Pastor Joel Osteen’s Lakewood Church (May 11), T.D. Jakes’ Potter’s House (May 18), Bishop Eddie Long’s New Birth Missionary Baptist Church (June 1), Bill Hybels’ Willow Creek Community Church (June 9), and Rick Warren’s Saddleback Community Church
(Father’s Day, June 16). To which we say, categorically, that
homosexuals should always be welcomed within our churches. Christians
are called to love the sinner — every kind — not the sin. What remains unclear, however, is whether, by their presence, Soulforce
expects the gospel message will be tailored — censored, if you will —
to exclude any discussions of, or references to, their lifestyle. But
more importantly, when did preaching gospel morality for all people become a form of oppression?
|
|
The
saying is that “as goes California, so goes the nation.” Therefore,
those of us who understand what’s really at stake in the battle for
marriage as “the union of one man, one woman” had best arm ourselves
with a full understanding of the causal issues, and what the arguments
on each side are ultimately about. Our opponents are well organized and
seriously vested in their game plan.
Typically, they oppose any due process that allows the electorate to
decide on the definition of marriage, and claim that the Federal
Marriage Amendment Bill or a state marriage amendment is unnecessary.
But this argument is not just hypocritical and devious; it is outright
absurd, especially in light of what has now taken place in California,
not to mention Massachusetts in 2003. The “unnecessary” argument, we now
know, is a thinly veiled ploy to leave marriage vulnerable to judicial
and legislative attack, exactly as several social scientists and
conservative think tanks had warned several years ago. Under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution, judicial tyranny can spread to other
states. Unlike the Massachusetts ruling, there is no residency
requirement for same-sex marriage within California, which could
effectively force gay marriages to be legally recognized with the full
benefits of marriage in states like New York that do not yet expressly
have a constitutional amendment banning such unions. In fact, New York's
highest court handed same-sex marriage advocates a recent victory by refusing to hear an appeal on an appellate court's groundbreaking
ruling that recognized a same-sex couple's Canadian marriage. “If a
marriage is valid in the state or county in which the marriage took
place, New York law generally requires the recognition of that
marriage,” said Arthur Eisenberg, the NYCLU's legal director. “This case
involved a straightforward application of that principle.” By letting
the earlier ruling stand, valid out-of-state same-sex marriages are
recognized by the state of New York.
Ultimately, every state
without a constitutional amendment faces the exact same threat as
California. Including the results of the 2006 midterm elections, five
states recognize some alternative form of same-sex union, twelve states
ban any recognition of any form of same-sex unions including civil
unions, twenty-five states have adopted amendments to their state
constitution prohibiting same sex marriage, and another twenty states
have enacted statutory Defense of Marriage Acts (DOMAs).
As revolutionary — or conservative, depending on your worldview — as one might deem it by today’s standards, The Real Proposal
magazine endorses neither same-sex marriage, nor civil unions or
domestic partnership agreements for either same-sex or heterosexual
couples as a matter of basic "fairness" for the very reasons that the
California Supreme Court handed down its ruling. Essentially, the court
put no stock in the state's argument that same-sex and opposite-sex
couples already have equivalent rights under California law. In fact,
the 4-3 majority found that the Legislature's decision to treat gay
relationships as worthy of marriage-like benefits actually bolstered the
plaintiffs' argument that domestic partnerships are discriminatory.
Since the Legislature has treated same-sex and opposite-sex couples
equally, said the court, withholding the marriage label from gays is a
"mark of second-class citizenship." Ironically, the court suggested that
it might have reached a more moderate conclusion — such as requiring
the Legislature to institute domestic partnerships, rather than to
redefine marriage — if lawmakers had not already given substantial
benefits to gay couples. |
|
Once “compromise” and “fairness” become the moral standard on which laws are based, as opposed to what's right,
there will always be a slippery slope that descends into the kind of
ideological morass that we now find ourselves embroiled. Those who have
been around the block a few times know this only too well. Compromise in
integrity and righteousness always leads to more of the same. And,
today, many of us who love this country look on in disbelief at the
current cultural landscape — rife with divorce, cohabitation,
promiscuity, sexually transmitted disease, single moms, ill-mannered
children, failing public schools, substance abuse, domestic violence,
abortions, pornography and incivility — and don’t seem to be able to
connect the dots regarding how America fell this far this fast.
The
gold standard for marriage has always been and should always be “the
union of one man, one woman, for life.” Period. No good can result from
repeatedly lowering the bar. And, any deviation that society places a
stamp of approval on will ultimately lead to familial and societal
chaos. Indeed, the court found that California's domestic partnership
law, which constitutes marriage in all but name, violates the civil
rights of gay citizens. "Separate but equal" in the matter of same-sex
marriage is unconstitutional, they ruled. Never mind that the "equal
protection of the laws" provided by the Constitution of the United
States applies to people, not actions, or that laws exist precisely in
order to discriminate between different kinds of behavior or actions.
Which sane person could deny the importance of discriminating against
certain types of actions? No one is making a ruckus that we have laws
that “discriminate” against murderers, thieves, child molesters,
cheaters, liars, etc. because their behavior is unacceptable for
civilized society. And until Lawrence v. Texas, homosexuality in every state was deemed unacceptable behavior for a host of very valid reasons, including public health.
Moreover,
the argument that homosexuals have not been allowed to marry is simply
not true. The truth is that, up until the Massachusetts ruling in 2003,
which was effected in like manner through judicial decree, everyone in
America has had the right to marry…just not someone of the same sex! And
if they want marriage, homosexuals should be expected to follow the
same rules everyone else does, not have special interest privileges —
compromises, essentially — entrenched into law. Furthermore, analogies
with bans against interracial marriage are, in a word, bogus. Race is not part of the definition of marriage. A ban on interracial
marriage is a ban on the same actions otherwise permitted because of the
race of the particular people involved. It is a discrimination against
people, not actions. The definition of marriage as the union of a man
and a woman does not establish a sexual caste system, or relegate one
sex to conditions of social and economic inferiority the way it did for blacks in this country. It does, to be sure, deny the recognition as lawful
"marriages" to some forms of sexual combining — including polygyny,
polyandry, polyamory, and same-sex relationships. But there is nothing
invidious or discriminatory about laws that decline to treat all sexual
wants or proclivities as equal. People are equal in worth and dignity,
but sexual choices and lifestyles are not.
People in favor of
homosexual unions and gay marriage typically argue that if gays are
allowed to marry, it will not hurt their own marriage. Therefore, why
should they care about gay marriage? They also argue that society should
not dictate whom we should love. Both of these, however, are ad hominem arguments that obfuscate the real issue by changing the subject. The
issue of gay marriage is ultimately about whether or not we, as a
society, will confer the moral equivalence of heterosexual relationships
to homosexual unions. And those of us who disagree with such liberal —
and, some would argue, even immoral — thought have as much right as
anyone else to dissent privately, or in the public square without
censorship, fear of harassment, or reprisals. In any event, the faulty,
underlying premise of these arguments is that gay marriages and
relationships do not intrinsically affect anyone else’s marriage or
relationships at a personal level. But we are certain that the spouses that have lost their marriages by the “coming out” of their closeted counterparts previously on the "down low," and those children that are devastated by a change in the sexual orientation of a parent would beg to differ.
Moreover, such arguments are logically flawed. If we only cared about
laws that affected us directly in a radical individualistic way, as
opposed to those that affect families, societies, and nations, then we
shouldn’t oppose child molesters, drug abusers, wife beaters, or a host
of other gross violations that don’t directly affect us. Furthermore, it
is the institution of marriage and, therefore, the fundamental
essence of marriage as the union between one man and one woman that is
being challenged and overturned. And it is only by being disingenuous
and self-serving that anyone could argue in any reasonable debate that
there are no psychological and developmental consequences for the
offspring produced by, or engineered for such unions. Men and women —
regardless of what feminists preach — are not social constructs with
different genitalia. Neither are they interchangeable parts in a family
equation.
|
|
What makes the California ruling so remarkable — and
suspect — is the fact that it is the first court since Massachusetts in
2003 to rule that prevailing marriage laws constitute unconstitutional
discrimination. Courts in Maryland, New York, and Washington as well as
three international courts have since rejected that argument and upheld marriage laws against claims of discrimination. Now,
however, every state without a constitutional amendment faces the exact
same threat as California of having un-elected judges trample the will
of the people. But thanks to the 1.1 million Californians who signed
petitions to get a constitutional amendment on the ballot this November,
activist judges will not have the last word in California. California
voters will. And that’s a good thing, considering the fact that
California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s stance on this judicial ruling
is a disgraceful betrayal of public trust. Imagine the hubris, which
leads him to believe that the majority of his constituents have no idea
what's best for them, or that his allegiance is better served at the
altar of the Supreme Court than those who put him in office and made
clear their will through Proposition 22. The truth of the matter is that, by this ruling, 61 percent of
Californians — his constituents — have been deemed bigots. And, as the AirMaria
video so forcefully highlights, there are consequences for such
“bigotry” if this ruling stands without a constitutional amendment from
either the federal or state legislature.
Without question, the
California Supreme Court decision to strike down that state's ban on
same-sex marriage as unconstitutional is playing with fire. It will radically change society as we have known it in ways that are still unimaginable to most people.
And what is particularly amazing is that virtually none of the millions
who support this decision — let alone the four "compassionate" justices
— acknowledge this. Ultimately, the definition of marriage is not a
judge's decision. It's not a politician's decision. God help us to do
not what is politically expedient but what will preserve what our
founding fathers intended as a legacy for our progeny. God help us also
to win this battle for our freedoms, and America’s soul.
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
