If you are have forgotten or are unaware of what all the talk of Proposition 8 is about, be reminded that this California law was passed in 2008 to satisfy the will of the majority who wanted to define marriage as a covenant relationship between one man and one woman. On February 7th of 2012, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decided to strike down Proposition 8 by declaring it unconstitutional.
The rulings against Proposition 8 are characterized by the biased presuppositions of activist judges. The function of these judges should be to simply interpret existing law and determine if concurs with the constitution. Unfortunately, most judges, even and perhaps especially Supreme Court Justices, are willing to prostitute their positions to advance their own personal political and social agendas. Was this not blatantly obvious when Judge Vaughn Walker, who is openly homosexual and sports a homosexual partner, ruled against Proposition 8 in his “love letter to homosexuals” where he declared that the proposition “unconstitutionally burdens the exercise of the fundamental right to marry and creates an irrational classification on the basis of sexual orientation” in a lower district court in 2010?
The Judges of the 9th District Court had to scrape the bottom of the barrel to come up with any justification to oppose Proposition 8. The best they could do was voiced by Judge Stephen Reinhart, “Absent any legitimate purpose for Proposition 8, we are left with ‘the inevitable inference that the disadvantage imposed is born of animosity toward,’ or as is more likely with respect to Californians who voted for the proposition, mere disapproval of, ‘the class of persons affected.’” This judge effectively spit in the face of California voters who voted Proposition 8 into existence by declaring that their desire to sustain the definition of marriage that has worked so well for millenniums previous and their desire to preserve an institution that preserves opportunities for procreation are illegitimate desires concocted to cover up a bigoted hatred for homosexuals.
Bobble heads have emerged to offer their two cents and shamelessly promote themselves and their irreverent agenda. Ted Olson, the U.S. solicitor general under President George W. Bush, represents the plaintiffs in Proposition 8. He declared the recent decision to be a first step in ending discrimination. “Today we are more American because of this decision”. May we request a definition for ‘American’?
Mitt Romney, the Republican Presidential candidate spoke for conservatives when he promised to appoint judges who would oppose same-sex marriages, “Today, unelected judges cast aside the will of the people of California who voted to protect traditional marriage.” Please notice he also put a negative slant on the fact that these judges were not elected, but appointed, and then promised to do more of the same.
President Obama played his typical part as a non-player too weak and timid to choose sides. He declared that his opinion on the issue is still “evolving”.
The rationale of the court is that the state of California is violating the constitution by denying a right afforded to one group (heterosexuals) from another. (homosexuals) It seems the real question here is what is the difference between a right and a privilege? The constitution was written to protect our rights, not privileges. In order for a certain thing to have a right that certain thing must be defined. Opponents of marriage for homosexuals have defined marriage as a covenant between one man and one woman. You cannot grant this same right to any couple other than one that meets the definition. If the definition is corrupted there is no obligation to grant the right. The claim from proponents of gay marriage that they are not trying to redefine marriage is absurd. They must redefine it in order to qualify for the rights they demand. There has been no definition of marriage forthcoming from that side of the aisle.
The fact is, they are not redefining marriage. They are undefining it. (See How to Win the Marriage Debate, Selwyn Duke) The practice of declaring undeserved rights has become all too common in our modern society. Homosexuals in undefined relationships clamor for rights that are preserved for traditional married couples. Likewise, illegal immigrants expect to be treated as if they were legal, legitimate citizens of the U.S. Our youthful, dead-beat dropouts expect to be treated in the same way as the hard working, non-partying college grad that chose a different and more difficult path. There is a prevailing belief system that attempts to eliminate consequences for poor decisions and bad behavior. The majority of pre-birth murders are committed in an attempt to escape consequences for a decision regretted.
If the left wing of this issue (gay marriage) cannot specifically define marriage, how can they specify what marriage “is not”? If marriage IS between two people of the same gender, could marriage also not be between three people of the same gender? Is marriage deemed legitimate if it is between a single person of one gender and multiple persons of another gender? Is it necessary for marriage to include only human beings? Do we really want to open that can of worms? The 9th Circuit ruled on the ‘rights’ to marriage but did they even bother to define what it was they were supposedly protecting? How can you grant rights to something undefined?
It is for this reason most reasonable citizens believe the movement to legalized gay marriage is actually an attempt to destroy the traditional, time-honored institution that was clearly sanctioned by God. When men begin to devise their own plans as substitutes to God’s plan it doesn’t go well for man. God’s plan was to “multiply and replenish” the earth. His plan makes wonderful provision for the care of the elderly who are loved and cherished by their many offspring. When we oppose this plan by reducing our number of offspring through abortion and homosexual unions we bring confusion, poverty and destruction upon society.
God never sanctioned marriage between same gendered individuals. In fact, he clearly condemned such a thing. (See 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, Romans 1:26-27) The absurdity of it all is that the 9th Circuit Court is trying to protect and preserve a ‘right’ to something that has not been defined and does not actually exist.
- California’s Temper Tantrum Mollie Ziegler Hemmingway, Christianity Today Obnoxious mobs that won’t tolerate…
- California Abolishes Nature In his new book, Suicide of a Superpower, Pat Buchanan…