When a California judge ruled that Proposition 8 was unconstitutional,  most were not shocked.  The victory at the polls on November 5, 2008 was to be short lived and those who supported California Marriage Protection Act knew that the battle was far from over.  On August 4, 2010, U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker decided that Proposition 8 violated the U.S. Constitution.  The voters of California have voted twice to make marriage defined as “between a man and a woman”.  Proposition 22, voted on in 2000 and passed with 61% of the vote, was ruled unconstitutional under California’s constitution. Interestingly, the statute is very close in wording to the federal Defense of Marriage Act, enacted in 1996 by Congress.  Proposition 8, a constitutional amendment initiative, was drafted to override the Court’s ruling by using the language in Proposition 22, “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California” as a constitutional amendment.  It too passed with 52.24% of the vote.

On Monday, August 16, 2010, a federal appeals court put a hold on U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker‘s ruling, halting the same-sex marriages in California until at least December.

Loyola Law School professor Richard Hasen stated,

“I think there are strategic reasons why even the most ardent supporter of gay marriage could opt for a stay,” said Hasen, an expert on federal court stays. “The concern is that rushing things to the Supreme Court could lead to an adverse result [for supporters of gay marriage.] If this case takes another year to get to the U.S. Supreme Court, there could be more states that adopt same-sex marriage and more judicial opinions that reach that conclusion.”

Sadly, this argument adopts an evolutionary legal philosophy which holds that precedent and legal opinion somehow trump foundational truths found in the Constitution, as well as thousands of years of tradition.  Again, the virus of ethical relativism has infected all areas of life and spreads the disease using the ideology of tolerance and progress.

Those who stand for morality must never “rest on their laurels”, for the opponents will not rest either.  A battle may be won, but another will emerge, for that is the nature of this world; but to gain ground, only to lose due to complacency, is not an option.  The citizens in California who voted for Proposition 8 must continue to press the issue, and not cave to activist judges and an irate gay community.   Morality is not a shifting sand ideology, but one based on a foundation that is immovable.  It can however be covered with layers of superficial silt, produced by activist judges and a society with no moral tether.  Be diligent, don’t sleep and continue the good fight.

8 comments
  1. This is not about how many people agree with an ideology. Back in the 1960’s it was ilegal to marry someone that was not of your race. It was per popular demand, and widely adopted by almost all states. By the way this came from a milenary tradition proposed by the chruch (just like you are proposing same sex marriage should be ilegal). The courts have to rule against this law allowing interracial marriages to be performed. Was this morally accepted? NO. Was this religiously accepted: NO. But this social clash is going to end at some point in the acceptance and recognition we have nowadays for interratial marriages.

    Do i think this is going to deviate in people marrying animals? NEVER. Animals cannot consent, and marriage is a consentual contract between two parties that are in love. One day people will understand as well, that Marriage is not the same as Holy Matrimony. I will agree with you that Holy matrimony is a rite ordained by God in which (according to YOUR religion) is between a man a a woman ( Or maybe 4 women if we go to the islam, or maybe MULTIPLE women if we go back in time with the Mormon religion). The truth is, we are not seeking redemption, we only look to file taxes together, have the right to visit our spouses in the hospital, etc. which are rights (not rites) that everybody should be entitled to.

  2. “Morality” is subjective. Your idea of morality may not be the same as another. And neither idea takes precedent over the other, because it is subjective. For example, I do not find the act or lifestyle of homosexuality immoral whereas I am assuming you do. I do find it immoral to take rights or deny rights to law abiding, good people because of prejudice.

    For this, we cannot base a legal decision solely on morality. Instead we must ask ourselves what is right for all and not just what we feel is right for ourselves. Step outside of your own situation, your own prejudice to understand that homosexuals are people like you and I, who want the same rights and equal status as you and I. They deserve this just as much as you and I because we are law abiding citizens.

    The will of the people can be denied when the majority takes rights from the minority based on prejudice. That is why we have checks and balances in our government. That is why women, African Americans, and other minority groups now have equal rights even though there was a time when the majority voters kept equal rights from them.

    Please do not make the mistake that so many before us have made. Please do not be so blinded by your personal prejudices that you choose to discriminate.

  3. Constitutionally, America has held that marriage between two equal parties of consenting adults. The court ruled in Loving v. Virginia and in Lawrence v. Texas that

    (1) Interracial marriage is illegal and that “There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification.” (Loving) and therefore is in violation of the 14th Amendments as explained

    (2) “The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.” (Loving)

    And in Lawrence, the court held that

    (3) “the intimate, adult consensual conduct at issue here was part of the liberty protected by the substantive component of the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process protections.” Also, that “the Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual.” (Lawrence, Kennedy)

    Dissenting opinion stated that

    (4) “if moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct is ‘no legitimate state interest’ for purposes of proscribing that conduct… what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising ‘the liberty protected by the Constitution’? Surely not the encouragement of procreation, since the sterile and the elderly are allowed to marry.” (Lawrence, dis. Scalia)

    Religious freedom is the freedom to practice the religion without harming others. You can’t make the state not marry certain types of people; however, you as a religion do not have to approve, recognize or be silent about how much the Gay Marriages are harming you. However, the Prop 8 case could produce no evidence of such. Reading the judgement is painful. Please, think about it. Conservatives should be all for gay rights, especially tea partiers. This is a constitutional right that the courts and multiple supreme courts from 1967 in a unanimous decision with prior precedence for the argument from previous cases.

    The separate class of marriages that are equal to marriages called civil unions is also invalid just as the schools being separate but equal was false and unconstitutional. (Brown v. Board of Education) This occurs where there is no rational case for the state to discriminate or make a separate class. Discomfort or dislike of something does not support this in a court of law. Churches can say no to marry the couples if they choose but the state must recognize the union. That is all that is being fought for here. For the rights to heredity laws, spousal protection and others not given. The name of marriage conveys the meaning. In all honesty, the State should issue only Civil Unions and Marriages would be conveyed by the churches with married couples filing a civil union with the state. However, if marriage is what the contract will be called for Civil Unions of heterosexual couples, you can not state that homosexual couples are unable to get the same contract.

    For the right to hold out a bit longer, they need to stop appealing this case. Otherwise, I thank you all then for getting this to be fixed faster. Without your hate, I wouldn’t be granted the right for maybe another 10 years.

    It is doubtful that Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, or any other justice will find that this case is different in argument. Appeals jurisdiction must give great weight of the initial trial’s facts and evidence presented and they can not review evidence not presented previously and since the Prop 8 evidence was shattered in this case, this is a dream case for Gay Rights activists.

    Thanks,
    GAvarice

  4. No on prop 8! Yes for marriage equality! And yes for immigration equality, which is related. For those of you who haven’t realized, foreign same-sex partnerships aren’t federally recognized by our government! This video I found on OURsceneTV says it all: http://ourscenetv.com/main/show/id/163 one of the main reasons why marriage benefits should be given to ALL couples

  5. Homosexual rights end when they encroach on others rights. Since marriage has been defined over thousands of years (Genesis 2:18-24 & Jesus in Matthew 19:4-6) and has resisted corruption, perversion, hijacking and annihilation, and has been under the authority of God and his churches, I suspect this will all eventually be straightened out. That marriage, with the support of the Constitution guaranteeing it under the freedom of religion, will be able to maintain meaning, respect and dignity. However, in end times, when satan takes rule, marriage too will fall, let us hope that is far into the future, or even, that mankind finds the true truths and gives God reason to change his plan. Until this all happens, one way or another, Christians simply need to keep a watchful eye on the signs predicted in the Bible.

    1. The second I read comments like these, I autonomously judge you unfit for debate. You speak irrationally and senselessly. People of your ilk continue doggedly to assert that your judgment can literally control the lives of others. You will forever lose this fight. The problem is that YOU classify the fight as being “good vs. evil” WITH THE ATTENDANT ASSUMPTION that you are on the side of good. Weirdly, most bizarrely, contentions like yours cause hatred, division, endless argument, war, strife, bickering, enmity and refusal to cooperate. Funny how that works. YOUR RELIGION tells me that I will know good and evil, clearly, by the signs before me. This does not bode well for you. I continue endlessly to oppose people of your amoral ilk. Thanks for reading.

  6. The term “equality” gets thrown around so much in this issue, but the question is, where does equality come from? According to the Bible we were made in God’s image, male and female, and therefore our equality comes from Him alone. It is not something that a government or a constitution can give, but is endowed by the Creator.
    Statements like: marriage equality, “Morality” is subjective, and prejudice are examples of absolutes used by those who don’t believe in absolutes. If there is no absolute truth, then there can be no equality, prejudice etc. But when one believes in absolute truth, in a God who defines what Truth, Love, Equality, Right and Wrong are, then one can stand firmly on moral convictions, while still loving those who don’t believe in God and who espouse views that go against the Bible. To stand for “Marriage between one man and one woman” does not scream prejudice or hate, but rather a standard that has been an institution from time immemorial, a standard that is rooted in the Bible and that has kept societies stable.

Comments are closed.

Get CT In Your Inbox!

Don't miss a single update.

You May Also Like

Dignity as a Litmus Test

Interesting post on the Evangelical Outpost blog.

April Visitors

I’m sure no else is interested in this, but I enjoy seeing…

Free Healthcare for All… Except Vets

From CNN: WASHINGTON (CNN) — Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki confirmed Tuesday…

Silver Linings

It would be easy to be dismayed by what happened in 2012, but conservatives can and should see some silver linings as 2012 comes to a close.