Tuesday, the California Supreme Court made another in a series of legislative and judicial decisions on gay marriage. It upheld Proposition 8, a statewide measure approved last fall by a majority of Californians that bans gay marriage in the state. For a second time in as many years the high court has had to step in and validate the will of Californians over interest groups looking to legislate through the court system against the desire of the majority opposed to homosexual marriage. This battle over same sex marriage has been fought across the United States since lawmakers in Massachusetts established same sex unions as state law in 2004. Since then over half of all of the states (30) have passed constitutional language defining marriage and forty-one (41) presently have statutes defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Typically, constitutional amendments have passed with an overwhelming majority. For example, the South Carolina, Constitutional Amendment 1 specifically defines marriage as “…the union between one man and one woman…,” passed in 2006 receiving 71% affirmative votes from South Carolina citizens!
It has been primarily through government initiated legislation or judicial proceedings that recognition of same-sex unions has been legally recognized. Massachusetts and Connecticut established gay marriage after court decisions, in 2004 and 2008, respectively. Maine and Iowa this year, going outside the will of the residents of its borders, added their name to the list of states recognizing same-sex unions.
Nationwide, support for same-sex marriage, while gaining steadily, is still a minority view. Most voters agree with the position held by Bishop Richard Malone. In a recent statement, following Maine Legislature’s same-sex marriage decree, the bishop remarked, “….We believe that the vast majority of Maine’s people believe that marriage is the union of one man and one woman, and that calling same-sex relationships marriage doesn’t make them so. Marriage as we have known it for millennia has served as the cornerstone of society. The family, consisting of mother, father and children, has served throughout the ages as the natural place for the healthy development of children into well adjusted and productive citizens. Same-sex marriage is a dangerous sociological experiment that I believe will have negative consequences for society as a whole. Children will be taught in schools that same-sex marriage and traditional marriage are simply different expressions of the same thing, and that the logical and consistent understanding that marriage and reproduction are intrinsically linked is no longer valid. These are profound changes that will reverberate throughout society with tragic consequences." Bishop Malone’s view is in line also with the conclusions of Mr.
Stanley Kurtz of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, who has written extensively on the societal impact of same-sex marriage. Mr. Kurtz’ research has shown that in those countries adopting homosexual unions’ have “seen a decline in the number of marriages, a delay in people getting married, more children being born out of wedlock and higher rates of divorce. These trends negatively impact our society and the welfare of our children.”
The gay marriage issue has surfaced another and perhaps more significant threat to our Constitution and our country. The “will of the people,” is largely being ignored by elected officials in favor of gay special interest groups. Anticipating increasing apathy will limit protest, an activist judiciary and complicit politicians are deliberately ignoring the majority for personal gain. However the people, at least Californians, are beginning to fight back.
By the California results and the overwhelming number of statewide referenda over the past few years, it is clear that the majority of Americans do not approve of the official recognition of homosexual unions. While I can’t speak for everyone, I suspect most who vote in opposition believe that an official legal recognition, implies moral acceptance of homosexuality, something which gnaws at the very fiber of our being. By shear voting percentage in 41 states, average Americans will not accept homosexual behavior, taking rather the biblical worldview that labels homosexuality a sinful sexual deviance that should not be condoned by society under any legal umbrella be it marriage or “union.” Lobbyists and interest groups, however, continue their “full court press” to circumvent the democratic process and usurp the people’s will by using the judicial and legislative process to force their agenda on the majority.
Tuesday’s 6-1 California Supreme Court vote upholding the Proposition 8 referendum banning gay marriage in California has reestablished confidence in the democratic process at least for a time. But, it has not dampened the resolve of the homosexual minority who continue to press the weak-willed politicians hungry for big money interest group support to press for back-door methods to by-pass the majority.
Speaking out against gay “anything” invites extreme ridicule and opposition. Former Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, in a recent interview explains:
“What I've noticed about this debate is that fewer and fewer people are stepping up and taking the position I'm taking (opposition to gay marriage) because they see the consequences of doing so. I don't think there is an issue that is a tougher issue for people to stand up against in American culture today than this one, both from the standpoint of the mainstream media and the popular culture condemning you for your - they can use all sorts of words to describe you - intolerant, bigot, homophobe, hater. The other side takes it personally. And so it makes it very difficult for folks to stand up and argue public policy when the other side views it as a personal, direct assault on them…we have a battle of ideas and one side is universally hammered for being intolerant bigots and the other side is enlightened and tolerant - which I think is false, but it is the pervasive attitude.” Santorum continues, “…..the public perception is if you (oppose gay marriage), you're (labeled) a bigot or a hater. And if the culture continues to send that message, if our educational system sends that message, which it does, you know, eventually the culture will change and people's opinions will change.”
The moral fiber of the United States is in danger of being undermined by the scourge of sexual immorality. Simultaneously a template is being constructed by which the vocal minority can seize the will of the people and by-pass the democratic process. If homosexual marriage eventually becomes law, this template can and will be used again and again to foist other unpopular issues upon Americans until we no longer find ourselves living in the freedom our forefathers envisioned for us.
The homosexual marriage issue is more than just a battle to legitimize sexual immorality; it is part of a larger war to determine whether American governance will continue in the manner in which our Constitution intends and for which millions of our young men and women died on the battlefield. Our very existence as a free nation is at stake. We need to ask ourselves. “Do we want to be a democratic republic in which the “will of the people” is executed by a freely elected government or will we return to our roots and accept again an imposed aristocratic rule by a powerful and increasingly hedonistic minority?
Comments
ROFL
Oh wait were you being serious with this blog?
First, please think of all those who you think should be allowed to get married. Now, define "man" and "woman" in some way that won't exclude some of those people - it is impossible. Naturally occurring sex chromosome differences alone will invalidate this stupid law when some one is willing to pony up the big bucks to challenge it. Medical mistakes will hit others that you were willing to marry.
The simple truth is that the "marriage" has both a religious meaning and a civil meaning. As long as the state wants to make money licensing unions between people, then the civil meaning takes precedence and the Iowa Supreme Court hit the nail on the head there.
Unfortunately, bigoted arguments like the one presented in this article are nothing new. For example, it wasn't that long ago that our Supreme Court was forced to strike down similar laws and amendments against miscegenation (interacial marriage) that were being justified with the statement that (quoted from the Supreme Court decision in LOVING V. VIRGINIA)...
"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."
But the simple fact is that in the United States, the freedom to marry the person of one's CHOICE is a basic civil right. Its not an unrestricted right, but the government DOES have to demonstrate a compelling interest that is free from invidious classifications in order to restrict it...and this article does not do that.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!