Today is a red-letter date in American History. It is not, however, a good thing. Today, a federal judge, Vaughn R. Walker, declared California’s Proposition 8–defining marriage as between one man and one woman–to be unconstitutional. This is huge.
Since I am not a lawyer, I will be discussing this issue in non-legalese common sense. Having said that, there are a few things to explore:
1. The text of Proposition 8 is as follows:
This initiative measure is submitted to the people in accordance with the provisions of Article II, Section 8, of the California Constitution.
This initiative measure expressly amends the California Constitution by adding a section thereto; therefore, new provisions proposed to be added are printed in italic type to indicate that they are new.
SECTION 1. Title
This measure shall be known and may be cited as the “California Marriage Protection Act.”
SECTION 2. Section 7.5 is added to Article I of the California Constitution, to read:
SEC. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. (source)
Notice, this is not a “law,” per se. This is a constitutional amendment. As such, by definition, it cannot be declared “unconstitutional.”
2. The judge, Vaughn R. Walker, is himself a homosexual. (see here) Since he is a gay man living in the state where this amendment is being challenged and since he would be directly impacted–in some way–by his own decision and because he is prejudiced toward the side of those seeking to overturn this amendment, he should have simply recused himself. There can be no clearer demonstration of a conflict of interest.
3. That the Proposition 8 amendment made it on the ballot, presupposes that due process was given to the proponents of the amendment and it also presupposes that the proponents did everything required by the California constitution to get Proposition 8 onto the ballot. Furthermore, 52% of those voting in the November 2008 election decided to make an amendment to the California constitution recognizing as valid only those marriages between a man and a woman.
So, Then, What Is Going On Here?
What we are witnessing here is the end of the democratic republic. I know that sounds alarmist, but it is true.
Let’s remember that, in California, homosexual couples have every right that every heterosexual couple has. California has established the same rights in its civil-union law. So, it is not about “equality” because in the eyes of California law homosexual civil unions and heterosexual marriages are identical in rights afforded to the parties involved. The only “thing” missing is the title “marriage.” So, this is not about equal rights; that is a red-herring, strawman argument.
Secondly, the Constitution of a state is not amendable by a court…that would be tyranny. The Constitution of the State of California is amendable by simple majority of voters, not by judicial fiat.
What we have here, then, is the tyranny of one man who, because he is himself homosexual and therefore has a vested interest in the outcome of the case, should have recused himself.
What is more, the precedent set here is outrageous. The State of California has proved today that it is most certainly not a government “of, by, and for the people.” The people spoke in November of 2008. The government of California is anything but democratic.
Why Does This Matter?
This matters precisely because this will inevitably give homosexual couples special rights. No pastor will be able to preach against homosexuality without fear of imprisonment, churches may very well be forced to hire homosexuals against their own consciences, and every person’s right to “freedom of speech” will be taken away…simply because a minority of people do not like what the majority has to say.
The day may come when “gay marriage” is legal in all 50 states. Truly, we (collectively) legalize gay marriage to our own peril–I know the Bible and I know that God will not long put up with this clear repudiation of and rebellion against Himself. But, if this does indeed happen it must be done through the legislative process–which includes the ability of the people to amend the constitution. It cannot be done through the judiciary–which, constitutionally, has no authority to make laws. Had the anti-Proposition 8 group undertaken to re-amend the constitution of California to strike section 7.5, I would be disappointed, but understanding and far less apoplectic. They would have to petition to get the measure on the ballot and a majority of voters would have to approve it. Obviously, that didn’t happen; that would have been proper. Nothing about this decision is proper.
In the California decision, there is something much more subtle at stake–whether a government (state and/or federal) is a government “of, by, and for the people.” We are now discovering that we are no longer a nation of laws–a representative republic. We can clearly see that we–actually, our government–have left the democratic haven that our forefathers left us and have slipped down the slippery slope to the place where the government dictates how we will live and what we will think. George Orwell was right.
For a further discussion of this topic, read The California Supreme Court and Our Diet of Worms