Traditional Marriage Declared Unconstitutional
The following ruling was made on May 15, 2008:
“San Francisco — The California Supreme Court today held that the California legislative and initiative measures limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples violate the state constitutional rights of same-sex couples and may not be used to preclude same-sex couples from marrying.” [SOURCE]
David Anderson brought this ruling to my attention a few days ago, and today I received an email from Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family covering this issue on his radio broadcast.
Besides the subject itself, what’s disturbing to me is that these (4 out of 7) judges made this decision despite the vote of the people. In 2000, Proposition 22 was passed by the people of California with 61.4% of the vote defining marriage as being between one man and one woman. But that wasn’t enough to prevent a handful of justices last week to declare opposite-sex marriages as “unconstitutional”. So now what?
According to ProtectMarriage.com, “An amendment to the California Constitution, which requires a vote of the people, is the only way to stop the politicians, and especially the courts, from re-defining marriage against the will of the majority of Californians.”
This is yet another reason why I like Mike Huckabee…he favors the Federal Marriage Amendment protecting traditional marriage.
Wake up, America. I believe the majority of us across the land believe that marriage should be defined as being between one man and one woman…but in order to protect that institution we must amend our Constitution.
In July 2004, Senator John McCain addressed this issue on the Senate floor. He believed this decision should be left up to the states. My concern, however, is if a state’s Supreme Court can overrule the vote of its people with something like this, then what would prevent the Federal Supreme Court from doing the same thing? I’d love to hear your thoughts.
Posted: May 20th, 2008 under Family, Faith/Religion, Politics.
Comments: 21
21 Responses to “Traditional Marriage Declared Unconstitutional”
Write a comment
Related articles
- Vote Your Values on November 4th (November 2nd, 2008)
- Marriage & Family as God Intended (October 28th, 2008)
- Baby Killing Should Be Outlawed! (October 17th, 2008)
- Palin Power: VP Candidate Speech (September 4th, 2008)
- School Choice: Homeschool, Public or Private (July 30th, 2008)
May 21st, 2008 at 8:31 am
I’m not clear why allowing same sex marriage threatens traditional marriage. How about explaining it your own words, instead of parroting the nonsense coming out of James Dobson’s mouth.
May 21st, 2008 at 9:20 am
The fact that we have to preface the word “marriage” with “traditional” should be explanation enough. Marriage means a union between one man and one woman. It is the foundation of the family unit, and the family unit is the foundation for a civilization.
Allowing same-sex marriage threatens traditional marriage because it is equating the two types of unions with each other, when they are clearly not the same.
Same-sex unions cannot produce the same result. When you have a union of one man with one man (or one woman with one woman), then that’s where it ends…no offspring…no family unit…the civilization will eventually cease.
Now if a same-sex couple would like to commit to one another exclusively, then that’s their prerogative, but they shouldn’t change the meaning of a word just to suit their lifestyle.
What’s next? Cross-species marriage…a marriage between a man & man’s best friend? C’mon. I say leave “marriage” alone.
May 21st, 2008 at 10:00 am
Legalizing non-traditional marriage is simply about validation by mainstream society for a deviant lifestyle. Social conservatives will never validate a lifestyle that goes against what a personal and loving Creator intends for us. For those who close their eyes to the moral aspect, even the touted “laws of nature” (i.e. Darwinism) indicate that the “alternate” lifestyle is only one generation from extinction. No offspring can be produced by any same sex union. Inevitably, many same sex couples feel the “traditional” need for children. The children must be produced either by traditional society or by someone crossing over, even temporarily, from the same sex lifestyle. The traditional lifestyle is the only one that holds a future.
Children need a female mother and a male father to properly fulfill their needs, again as intended by God. Same sex marriages will never fulfill the needs of their surrogate children. Physical and practical needs may be met, but the spiritual needs will go unfulfilled or at best, tainted by the deviant lifestyle of their “parents”. One only needs to intelligently study our society to find the proof supporting a traditional family. If we only once again had a strong family at our nation’s core, many or most of society’s troubles would be cured.
People in America have the free will to choose whatever lifestyle they like. That is fine. Please keep it in the bedroom and don’t require me to explain to my children why two men are holding hands or why two women are kissing on TV. Live your life but don’t try to force the acceptance of your lifestyle by mainstream traditional society. We really don’t like having to see it and find it rather revolting.
I personally acknowledge the Biblical stance on this issue and understand that the Creator is a loving yet holy God that cannot tolerate sin. Repentance and sacrifice are required to be able to approach a perfect and sinless God. That may be worth looking into as we are eternal and spiritual creatures. The one truth is there for all to find. Hellfire burns eternally, acknowledged or not.
California can make its laws as it sees fit. Perhaps we can continue the fence all the way around it. We can put all the “alternates” over there and lock the gate. Only those converted to the traditional lifestyle and children can come join the rest of us. In 50 years or so, we can all move back into California when the “alternates” have gone extinct and taken the express elevator down south.
May 21st, 2008 at 10:27 am
The problem with your last paragraph, Ty is that there are many Californians who happen to ascribe to the traditional concept of marriage & family. There are over 61% of the population who voted for this proposition to properly define marriage. It is the justices legislating from the bench that has caused this problem.
If Supreme Court justices can do something like this…declaring traditional marriage as unconstitutional, then imagine what the Federal Supreme Court can do. There are justices expected to be appointed in the next Presidential term. It is imperative that we be sure our leaders appoint individuals who will rule based on the Constitution, not on today’s culture.
Here’s an article that shows the distinction between the kind of Supreme Court Senator McCain envisions vs. Senator Obama. This distinction alone should be enough to get the social conservatives on board with Senator McCain.
May 21st, 2008 at 12:49 pm
You are correct in that I likely offended some good conservatives in California. I perhaps spoke in a matter lacking decorum and do acknowledge that fault.
I pray the traditional majority voices out and over the ruling of the liberal judges in California. Legislation should not be passed from the bench as it is totally un-American and contrary to the liberty conceived by the founders of this great country. The wish of the majority should prevail if the government is to be of, by and for the people. Please do whatever is necessary to triumph as this precedent is paramount in either preserving or dismantling American society.
The power is still in the hands of the American people. Please keep it that way. It is either self-determination or slavery. Please choose wisely. Please use your voice to stand against the tyranny that is liberalism. There is more at stake than civil unions in California. The very fabric of American society stands threadbare and ready to unravel.
Huckabee is the distinction that will get this conservative on board with McCain.
It will be a great step forward if 1 or 2 more conservative judges take a seat in the Supreme Court during the next Presidential cycle. Roe V. Wade has to go and the changing of the guard should “git’ r done”.
May 21st, 2008 at 6:18 pm
Hoobie, if you want more fun, click on her link to my article. The CA Supreme court not only disrespected the voters, it disrespected its own precedent. What changed in 4 years besides one member when Janice Rogers Brown was elevated to the Federal Court of Appeals?
May 22nd, 2008 at 8:56 am
How does allowing same-sex marriage infringe on someone else’s individual freedom and pursuit of happiness, damage their property, or otherwise negatively affect their well-being?
Try and answer without basing your argument on fiction. This is about the constitutional law, in the same way that racial, gender and religious equality are.
Wanting to shelter your children from reality really isn’t a persuasive argument.
May 22nd, 2008 at 10:00 am
Hoobie,
The term “marriage” is being re-defined when folks want to include same-sex unions as an additional meaning. The problem is with redefining the word/institution. This is not about constitutional law. This is about a product of today’s culture wanting to twist tradition to fit their desires.
May 22nd, 2008 at 10:01 am
Hoobie,
Why does same-sex marriage need to be allowed? What is the valid point? There is none. Every issue can be addressed and accomplished without the need for a new definition of marriage. Every issue, that is, except some type of blanket acceptance by society of the deviant lifestyle. That, my friend, will not be coming despite what some wacko liberal judge legislates from the bench..
Life your life but live it unacknowledged. If you want reality, take an intelligent look at what same sex marriages have done to other cultures. Not one good thing came from it, in fact, the further degradation of the society was the only result.
How is my well-being negatively affected? The circus that is a gay-pride drags traditional America to hell in a hand basket. Live your life but please keep it in the bedroom. My well-being is negatively affected by having to endure my morality being trashed in an open spectacle that is Hollywood and gay pride. Why the need to flaunt about in such camp fashion? Why not just live a normal, quiet life like the majority of Americans and keep the offensive behavior private? Having to see it at all is definitely an infringement on my pursuit of happiness.
If you are interested in constitutional law, I support a constitutional amendment to protect traditional marriage and seal this absurd conversation permanently.
Sodomy is against the law in most places in the country. Where is my constitutional protection from people that engage in that? Perhaps those laws are unconstitutional or perhaps the Sodomites should simply be cast into prison?
Pornography, violence, cigarettes, alcohol, guns and so forth are all reality. Perhaps children should just be openly exposed to them along with the gay lifestyle. The fact is, children should be protected from real things that are harmful or a bad influence. That is a persuasive argument to anyone that has a shred of common sense or has naturally procreated offspring that they love and nurture.
To put it simply, quit the squawking and put it back in the closet where it belongs. There is no reasonable support for the lifestyle choice much less the legal aspects. Besides all of that, where is a civic sense of decency? Does coming out of the closet now simply alleviate what should be a well founded disgrace?
Acknowledgments needed? No way. Shame on you.
May 22nd, 2008 at 10:24 am
Shame on me? That’s a laugh. I am not the one advocating the continued denial of the legal advantages of marriage to same sex couples. You are.
Based on what? You are insulted by the life style? Don’t live it, then. Your morality remains intact.
BTW, I have both more than a shred of common sense and “naturally procreated” offspring who are doing very well living their lives in the real world.
I don’t support the nanny state telling people how to live that those of certain religious persuations are fond of.
The “wacko” liberal judge you refer to is a Republican, and I presume is a conservative. He made his decision out of fairness and respect for the law, not mob rule by socially conservative activists.
Look at your circle of friends and people you admire and respect. Are any of them gay? Are you sure? I’m sure they wouldn’t tell someone like you if they were.
May 22nd, 2008 at 12:20 pm
You are wrong to presume that a Republican is a conservative. Christine Whitman appointed ACLU people to the NJ bench and it got a similar result. CA Gov. Wilson was a liberal even though he was a Republican. He was just a liberal who would rather not bankrupt everyone and have a decent business environment. Unfortunately, he even compromised some of that away. So, yes a Republican Liberal is one with a little common sense so he/she is better than a Democrat Liberal, but not much better. These two courts reinforce my concern that a Republican Liberal is no better for the culture than a Democrat Liberal. I would rather support a good Christian Democrat like former KS Gov. Joan Findley than a liberal Republican like Weld, Wilson, or Whitman. That was my concern about Giuliani. If conservatives every wondered why people like myself would have never voted for him even if we went third party, this decision is why. The real choice is not about my side or your side. It is about God’s side or the devil’s. Right or wrong. Not GOP or Dem.
My personal close circle of friends has no gay people. I am not ashamed to say that. My personal close circle of friends are people who respect my values and enhance my strengths and accept my help. How many born again Christians are in your close circle? I also don’t have any drug addicts as close friends or abortionists or Nazis (not that gays compare to any of those groups). My friends share a world view and a mission in life. Yet in my wider circle of friends I have a great diversity of people. Some people are gay, some cohabitate, some are married, some are rich, some are poor, some had prostitution issues, some are substance abusers, some are Muslims, some are Christians, some are agnostics, some are conservatives, and some are socialists. People are people. Everyone was made by God with a purpose and has dignity. When you respect that dignity, you see beyond the differences.
Are there Gays that I respect? Yes, some with whom I have worked and am friends with. Some in the public eye who do good work. You don’t have to think that something is wrong with gay people in order to understand the meaning and function of marriage.
What that line of questioning has to do with the definition of marriage is puzzling, but you asked.
May 22nd, 2008 at 12:32 pm
Hoobie, here is an excerpt from my post. One another blog, Delawarepolitics.net, it received an 107 comments so I guess this issue ressonates on both sides.
I understand what is at stake. In the few countries which have tried this brave new world, marriage rates are already declining. The stability of the family has worsen. We already see the wreckage caused by a society based upon single parenthood. It causes disconnected males. It gives higher crime rates, higher poverty, a lack of commitment to anything, and a dispirited youth. It causes government to expand to make up for the lack of family and gives a corresponding decline in freedom. If even the tradition of marriage is not sacred, then all others are weakened. A society without tradition is no society at all. It is just a collection of people who happen to live at the same time.
Marriage and family are basic building blocks of civilization add in civil government, organized religion, and economic exchange (business) then you have a strong society. Take away any of those and you tragically weaken the ability of any people to function as a community.
My critics are going to say that I am claiming gay people are destroying civilization. No, I am saying the secular elite is destroying our civilization. Gay people don’t hurt us by being, loving, or discovering their own institutions. It is not the business of government to involve itself in emotional or economic relationships unless all of society benefits from it. Therefore government should not interfere with gay relationships, but neither does it have an obligation to pretend they serve the vital function that marriage does. I don’t have a problem with gays. I have a problem with those who wish to use gays to advance their radical agenda. They don’t care about gays or straights. They care about building a new social order as a shrine to their enlightened wisdom.
May 22nd, 2008 at 1:02 pm
Hobbie,
I am more than happy to have this discussion with you. Perhaps I can keep it simple by going back to reiterate the unanswered question that has I have posed several times .
What is the basis for the need to redefine a well established tradition of our “tribe” that is defined by marriage?
Webster, who happens to be a great patriot, has a long standing definition of marriage as ” the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law”.
The legal advantages for same sex relationships can be met without changing that definition. Again, “the gay agenda” is simply more than that battle cry which is a diversion to the true agenda which, again, is simply about validation. If that fact cannot be brought to the table it will be a short debate as far as I am concerned. Any practical legal advantage of traditional marriage has already been extended to same sex couples. What legal advantages would you like to speak of?
Why do you want to change my tribe and the wisdom of its laws and traditions? Our success and prosperity is proof enough to support the tradition. Instead of trying to change the established law of the whole tribe, why doesn’t the gay faction go start its own tribe? This tribe would run its course to extinction and the solution would find itself.
How do your offspring feel about the alternate lifestyle? Do they partake? Did you have a spouse and how do they feel about the alternate lifestyle? Is everyone unashamed of each other?
True conservatives do not support a “nanny state” in the least. Small government is where it is at. Government is the problem, not the solution.
“Religion” does not weigh into anything I say or do. I would imagine that would be a very long discussion and would most likely fall on deaf ears in this case.
The judge would be a Republican in name only or is perhaps one of the way left moderates in the GOP. No conservative that I know would uphold that decision. A label does not speak the same way actions do.”
I would safely say that anyone I would fully admire is not gay.
If anyone was gay, I would think it would come up in the circle that I keep. If it did arise, it would be dealt with by love and in the spiritual aspect, where the affliction truly lies. The Creator does not assign the wrong gender. That is a lie stemming from the heart of rebellious and individualistic man. Again, that is probably a discussion we will not be able to have as we cannot even speak the same spiritual language.
You speak of mob rule. The only mob rule is the loudest of the obviously minority factions. The majority, however, is a different story. The conservative majority can crush the whole mess if they awaken from the stupor of the liberal media and education systems. They remain placated and duped. The bulldog liberals are the mob rule. One only has to turn on the TV or open a newspaper to verify this.
I look forward to your logical and full response to each point.
May 22nd, 2008 at 1:55 pm
There is no God or devil, only right or wrong.
If I had a friend who turned out to be a born again Christian it wouldn’t change my opinion of him. Unfortunately, most born agains prattle on incessantly about Jesus, so I just tend to avoid them. I don’t condemn them and attempt to censure them just because they offend, though.
I am not gay, my wife and children are not gay. We all know gay people, though, and are proud to call them our friends.
Reread your arguments against same-sex marriage, only this time substitute “interracial” for “same sex”. Now tell me if you still feel good about yourself.
Finally, it is inevitable that same sex marriage will be recognized. Most people accept this on the basis of fairness, and will move one to more important issues. Now, if your particular denomination refuses to recognize or perform or sanction or accept same sex marriage, then that is perfectly acceptable. I think your issue is with government having any involvement with the institution of marriage in the first place, although I could be wrong.
May 22nd, 2008 at 4:07 pm
Hoobie,
Your diversionary tactics continue. Ok, I will keep it simple for you. One question at a time. Please answer directly and intelligently IF you are capable. Thank you.
Why does same-sex marriage need to be allowed?
May 22nd, 2008 at 4:16 pm
Here’s a thought: Why do I have to recognize the measure of a person based on their sexual preference? Is that what they want people to know them by? Their sexual preference? Isn’t there something worth more about them than that? Why should a person receive special rights and priveleges based on their sexual choices?
I have a brother-in-law that is gay. I am grieved by his lifestyle, but I love him based on his heart. He has never demanded anyone to recognize his merit based on his sexual preference. I respect him for that. If anyone were to strike out at him, I would defend him to the death. However, it wouldn’t be because of his sexual preference, it would be because of his merit as a wonderful human being.
May 22nd, 2008 at 6:03 pm
The issue I raised when I wrote this post was that of “traditional marriage” being declared “unconstitutional”. While I have gobs and gobs of thoughts on the subject of homosexuality, my initial concern was that members of a justice department (in this case, California’s Supreme Court) were able to make such a declaration in their ruling.
They are saying because the Proposition 22 stated marriage was between one man and one woman (excluding the combination of two men or two women…or a man and his dog, for that matter), it was trampling on the constitutional rights of an individual who preferred to be in union with a same sex partner (or a member of another species) and call it “marriage”.
This is not a moral question…it’s not about whether homosexuality (or cross-species activity) is right or wrong…it’s about denying (and/or altering) the meaning of a tried and true institution known as “marriage”.
Now when I refer to cross-species relations, I’m not suggesting that’s what homosexuality is, I’m merely pointing out another possible argument somewhere down the line. If we can change the meaning of the institution to include another type of union (such as same-sex), then what is to stop us from including yet another type (such as cross-species)?
Ty keeps asking, “why does same-sex marriage need to be allowed”. Personally, I don’t think it “needs” to be allowed. He seems to think the homosexual community wants to be validated by seeking inclusion in the institution of “marriage”, and he might be right. I’d be interested in hearing the answer to that question by someone from that community who feels the need to redefine marriage.
Hoobie asked, “How does allowing same-sex marriage infringe on someone else’s individual freedom and pursuit of happiness, damage their property, or otherwise negatively affect their well-being?”
- Allowing same-sex “marriage” has one HUGE downside that I’ve been trying to point out all along the way…that it’s not what marriage means.
- Allowing same-sex “unions” has a whole other set of downsides that infringes on the rest of the society…some of which David touched on.
If homosexuals want to argue over receiving the same “legal benefits” as those who are married, then by all means they should be able to do so. But denying them the opportunity to redefine a traditional institution is not a form of intolerance or religious control, but rather it’s defending a tried and true tradition against opposition.
I don’t believe it is inevitable for same-sex marriages to be recognized in America…unless of course we, the people let it happen. We still have a voice in this great nation, and we need to use it effectively.
And in this case, I believe we need to call for a Marriage Amendment to the US Constitution.
May 22nd, 2008 at 6:51 pm
I wanted to clarify as to how my comments related to the topic. They were basically to answer Hoobie’s post #14. My apologies for the tangent. What I find disturbing regarding the decision of the Supreme Court justices is it seems they have established “equality” based on sexual preference. This in itself creates a separate class of people based on sexual preference as opposed to people of a specific race or gender. How long will it be before the Supreme Court establishes that it’s “unconstitutional” for NAMBLA to not pursue their lifestyle as well? The “equalty” that appears to be called for is one of “anything goes”. The only problem is in a society of this mentality, destruction is not far off due to chaos that is created.
May 22nd, 2008 at 11:36 pm
I just found this petition from Liberty Counsel calling for a Federal Marriage Protection Amendment. Join me in putting this issue to rest.
May 23rd, 2008 at 1:51 pm
Hobbie, let’s look at this carefully. The framers of the 14th amendment specifically had race in mind when they wrote it. The states knew that when they ratified it. When the court ruled in I believe it was Loving v. Virginia to strike down laws which forebade marriage between different races, it returned marriage to its origninal state. It did not affect the fundamental understanding of marriage. It did not contradict the intention of the framers.
What you want is for the courts to fundamentally change marriage in opposition to the Democratic process. Don’t you see a difference? If not, than we will just have to peaceably disagree.
May 28th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
Here is an interesting tidbit from Wikipedia:
“In 2004, the American Anthropological Association released this statement:[37]
The results of more than a century of anthropological research on households, kinship relationships, and families, across cultures and through time, provide no support whatsoever for the view that either civilization or viable social orders depend upon marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution. Rather, anthropological research supports the conclusion that a vast array of family types, including families built upon same-sex partnerships, can contribute to stable and humane societies.”
Once again, science and religion butt heads.
It’s important to note that we are talking about marriage in legal and not religious terms. I read that there are over 1300 Federal statutes that confer some type of benefit on couples who are legally married. So, there are two options: eliminate these statutes; or, allow same-sex couples to marry and be eligible for these benefits.