Court shakes California twice in three weeks
by: Doug Carlson - Jun 17, 2008 - comments: 22
Long-time California residents have experienced their share of earthquakes over the years, but perhaps they were rocked most on two days recently over the course of three weeks. These fault lines, however, ran not in the Earth’s crust but in the state’s highest court, and its citizens are still feeling the aftershocks.
The first quake came somewhat unexpectedly on May 15 as the state Supreme Court, in a 4-3 decision, granted homosexuals the legal right to “marry” in the Golden State, trampling underfoot the will of 61 percent of voters who approved a 2000 ballot measure on traditional marriage.
If you support God’s plan for marriage, please urge your representative to cosponsor the Marriage Protection Amendment (H.J. Res. 89) to protect the institution in the U.S. Constitution.
Several pro-family legal agencies, along with the attorneys general of 13 states, requested that the court stay its ruling until Californians have a chance to cast their votes on a one-man, one-woman marriage amendment to the state’s constitution in November. That triggered the second quake.
On June 4, the same four justices, constituting a simple majority, denied the request and instead ruled that as of June 16 at 5 p.m., homosexuals and lesbians would be permitted to “marry” legally. Many of these couples flocked to courthouses last evening to officially “wed,” and thousands more are expected to do the same this summer.
The impact of these “marriages” will reach far beyond the homosexual community. Grade school curriculum, for example, will be rewritten to teach children that a normal, healthy family can include a daddy and a daddy or a mommy and a mommy. It is possible that the tax-exempt status of Christian organizations could be called into question for refusing to recognize same-sex “marriages.” And the state could force faith-based adoption agencies to place children into homosexual families, just as Massachusetts, the only other state to legalize same-sex “marriage,” gave Catholic Charities of Boston the ultimatum of doing so or closing operations. The agency subsequently shut down its adoption services.
Adding to the fray, New York Gov. David Paterson (D) has ordered that the Empire State, which does not have legalized same-sex “marriage,” must recognize those “marriages” performed elsewhere, such as California and its neighbors to the east and north, Massachusetts and Canada.
The Southern Baptist Convention quickly reacted to the attack on marriage, staking its unwavering support for marriage the way God designed it and the best construct in which to raise children. Messengers to the Convention’s annual meeting June 10-11 overwhelmingly passed a resolution reaffirming support for “marriage as an exclusive union between a man and a woman,” and urging Californians to work diligently to support and vote to pass the state ballot on marriage.
All this could signal another quake on the horizon. If enough concerned Christians in California go to the polls on Nov. 4 and pull the lever for marriage, the quake could rattle the state Supreme Court in Sacramento and shake the nation, awakening both Christians and a wayward culture.
In the meantime, the battle for the preservation of the family must be waged by all Christians on their knees before God. To lose the battle here would only broaden the seismic shift in the culture and help to ensure that the dismantling of the family continues.
If you support God’s plan for marriage, please urge your representative to cosponsor the Marriage Protection Amendment (H.J. Res. 89) to protect the institution in the U.S. Constitution.
The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission works to preserve the institution of marriage and the value of family in the lives of Americans. To learn more about these important issues, additional resources are available here. If your church is interested in purchasing materials on marriage and family, please visit our online bookstore.
Further Learning
Learn more about: Family, Marriage, Sexual Purity, Homosexuality, Citizenship, Christian Citizenship, Legislation
22 comments (post your own) feed
1 On Jun 19th, 2008, at 11:50am, Dan Valdes wrote:
Mr. Carlson writes..
..."To lose the battle here would only broaden the seismic shift in the culture and help to ensure that the dismantling of the family continues.”
And in all earnestness I have to ask, what exactly is he so very afraid of?
How will two men marrying and raising children dismantle Mr. Carlson’s family in any way?
Why is there so much fear about families that might look differently than his? Why are our gay families of less value to him and the Baptists? What makes a family? Who gets to decide? Mr. Carlson? What makes a home? Why is Mr. Carlson’s home valid and mine invalid?
Why is there all this fear about people loving and having homes that might not fit the SBC model?
How will gay marriage affect the SBC?
How many gay married couples with children does Mr. Carlson personally know? I imagine not many.
2 On Jun 19th, 2008, at 12:48pm, Dan Valdes wrote:
From the opinion of the court.
..."permitting same sex couples access to the designation of marriage will not deprive opposite sex couples of any right and will not alter the legal framework of the institution of marriage"…
the opinion goes on to explain that the obligations and benefits of marriage apply equally in both situations ....
moreover…
...."retaining the traditional definition of marriage and affording same sex couples only a separate and differently named family relationship will, as a realistic matter, impose appreciable harm on same sex couples and their children, because denying such couples access to the familiar and highly favored designation of marriage is likely to cast doubt on whether the official family relationship of same sex couples enjoys dignity equal to that of opposite sex couples.”
3 On Jun 19th, 2008, at 12:59pm, Dan Valdes wrote:
the opinion goes on to explain there is a long history of disparagement of gay and lesbian persons and our families and excluding same-sex couples from the legal institution of marriage will very likely reflect
...."an official view” that gay couples and families are of “lesser stature than comparable relationships of opposite-sex couples”....
...and finally that by retaining marriage exclusively for opposite sex couples may have the effect of perpetuating the premise....
.....“now emphatically rejected” by California “that gay individuals and same sex couples are in some respects ‘second-class citizens’ who may, under the law, be treated differently from, and less favorably than, heterosexual individuals or opposite sex couples.”....
4 On Jun 21st, 2008, at 1:32pm, Ken Fletcher wrote:
As a Baptist, I support God design for marriage as communicated in Scripture(Mt.19). As a citizen, I desire for marriage to be strengthened not weakened by everything being called marriage. Studies(Twin registery study of Australia) do not support a genetic cause for Homosexuality, so society can discourage any behavior. Homosexuals can not marry someone of the same sex, but neither can I. I can’t marry my cousin or someone that is under-aged. No where on a marriage certificate does it ask if you “love” the person. The state supports what helps our society, NOT the individual. The state has the right to reward the relationship that benefits our society. The homosexual “marriage” arguement is based only on individual benefit- not societical. This is basicly another attack on the Biblical worldview that has made our country great. Our country will have a worldview I want a Biblical Worldview verses an atheistic worldview for the good of all.
5 On Jun 21st, 2008, at 1:46pm, Ken Fletcher wrote:
I’m not suprised that the Southern Baptist pastor stood up in support of marriage in the safety of their convention. It is so easy to stand for something when it cost you nothing. My question is: Will the pastors and the SBC support(financally) the CA and FL marriage campaigns and the Legal effort in our Nation’s courts to protect marriage? If a pastor says he supports “Biblical Marriage” then put your money where your mouth is! Or as James (NT) puts it-"be doers of the word and not hears only.” If we don’t support this effort the Biblical worldview in our nation will be lost!
6 On Jun 23rd, 2008, at 7:52am, Dan Valdes wrote:
Mr. Fletcher writes.."The homosexual “marriage” arguement (sic)is based only on individual benefit- not societical."(sic) but he apparently has not read the opinion of the court.
The court clearly states the benefit to society that marriage affords both same sex and opposite sex couples.
For example the financial benefit to spouses when one partner becomes unemployed or disabled is beneficial to society by keeping people out of the social services network, the security or a loving home when one partner becomes ill can prevent people from losing homes and becoming indigent, the added stability and love of a two parent home when raising children benefit society by raising more solid children, all these are beneficial to society and the families enjoined in those relationships.
These examples plus many others are cited by the justices in the opinion as to why same sex marriage is beneficial to society.
7 On Jun 23rd, 2008, at 5:50pm, Matt wrote:
In response to Ken’s comments in Post 5:
I can’t help but think of some of CS Lewis’ thoughts in Mere Christianity:
(Pardon the brief excerpts, tight on space!)
8 On Jun 23rd, 2008, at 9:25pm, David Asher wrote:
To many people it may be upsetting that the court would overturn the will of the people. It is one of the great paradoxes of a country that claims that it is run by the will of the people. However, America is so much more than that. We have created a society where even people who may be unpopular or targeted for whatever reason, have the same constitutional rights as every other American. The California Supreme Court upheld the rights that their state constitution gives to all California residents, regardless of sexual orientation. The courts and constitution are designed to protect minorities from the abuses of the majority. This theme has be repeated through history, and the current debate over gay marriage seems very similar to the past debate over interracial marriage.
9 On Jun 23rd, 2008, at 9:31pm, David Asher wrote:
Furthermore, there is a clause in the U.S. Constitution called “Full Faith and Credit.” The constitution is pretty explicit that a contract made in one state can be transported into another and still be valid. Otherwise, there would be a major hinderance to interstate commerce, and a great weakening of the Union. Therefore, to me, it seems extremely unconstitutional for a state to declare that they won’t recognize a marriage performed in another state because it didn’t fit their definition of marriage. Heterosexual marriages are portable from state to state as homosexual marriages should be. Its in the Constitution. This point has already been made in the Supreme Court in the 2004 case Lawrence v. Texas.
10 On Jun 25th, 2008, at 9:04am, Rick Hudgins, Jr. wrote:
“The homosexual “marriage” arguement is based only on individual benefit- not societical.”
-Respectfully, spelling correctly is the beginning of individuals being willing to take someone seriously. I believe you mean “argument” and “societal,” respectively.
-I find the content inherently problematic, and here’s why:
1) Your argument is contradictory. You are trying to argue that marriage (between a man/woman, in your case) promotes stability within a society, it “benefits” society. Lesbian and Gay individuals are only slowly being able to legally enter into such unions to promote stability in society. Essentially, we cannot benefit society “legally” if we are not given the chance;
11 On Jun 26th, 2008, at 5:04pm, Ken Fletcher wrote:
Sorry for the spelling errors, I was born that way, so please, be tolerant. Getting back to the issue, (CA supreme court ruling homosexual marriage), I disagree with the majority ruling. This was a very close vote (4-3) and the CA state supreme court has disagreed with the opinions of several liberal State Supreme courts (NY, MD, VT, WA. IN) on this issue. Plus they over ruled the will of the people expressed in prop. 22. The majority opinion is capable of being wrong. I think we would all agree that the 1857 Dred Scott case which over turned congress and ruled that slaves—“that the United States Congress had no authority to prohibit slavery in federal territories”shows that judges can be wrong. This ruling was the court redefining marriage to something that it has never been. Now you may feel that a redefinition was need, but this is not the purpose of the judiciary, but the legislative branch.
12 On Jun 27th, 2008, at 8:39am, Rick Hudgins Jr. wrote:
Respectfully, you failed to address my point, Mr. Fletcher.
Californians had previously voted twice to enact legislation that would legalize civil marriage between same-sex couples, only to have such legislation vetoed by the state’s governor (ironically with the suggestion that the matter be turned over to the state Supreme Court). Judges can indeed be wrong, Mr. Fletcher. However, in the context of this case, the people had previously shown *legislatively* that they wished to have same-sex marriage in their state.
Also, your argument is logically unsound. You state “This ruling was the court redefining marriage to something that it has never been.” If we were to apply this severely flawed attempt at logic to other civil rights cases we would still have slavery, women would be property, and only white, land-owning men would be allowed to vote.
13 On Jun 27th, 2008, at 9:33am, Dan Valdes wrote:
Mr. Fletcher states..."The majority opinion is capable of being wrong.” .
...and I wholeheartedly agree...the court found that the majority of public opinion can be wrong (as in Jim Crow)
they note changing public opinion on domestic partnerships and civil unions, which basically function as marital contracts therefore they should be called marriages because calling it something else perpetuates a negative stereotype about gay relationships and calls to question their validity.
How will gay marriage undermine other people’s marriage? The court found that it in no way affects opposite sex marriage so what do people fear about gay marriage?
14 On Jun 27th, 2008, at 2:28pm, Rick Hudgins, Jr. wrote:
It is fear of the “unknown” and “the other,” Mr. Valdes. Plain and simple fear.
15 On Jun 28th, 2008, at 7:26am, Ken Fletcher wrote:
Mr. Hudgins, I think sound reason would admit that The will of the people can best be measured a direct vote on a single issue(prop 22). The governor who veto the Homosexual marriage legislation was also put in office by the people, but the least connected to the people are the judges. The three examples that you gave are support actually supports my argument, that injustices are best corrected by the amendment process and not judicial activism. Slavery was ended by the 13th amendment. The voting injustices were corrected amendments. A women’s right to vote was fixed by the 19th amendment, age requirements by the 26th amendment, and the color issue by the 15 amendment. Women have never been property- no need for a constitutional fix.
I will be out or pocket for several days, but do have a good weekend and a enjoyable 4th.
16 On Jul 3rd, 2008, at 3:16am, Jarrot wrote:
Mr. Dan Valdes,
Surely by now you know that Christians base their opinions and beliefs on Biblical principles and ideals. With this said, our opposition to the Courts decision should come to no surprise to you.
Lets make a broader statement, people(whether publicly or privately) can make wrong decisions. This decision is in opposition to our beliefs on marriage. We don’t hold Judges opinions higher than anyone else’s, we hold the validity of their decision in comparison to scripture higher when such case arises. So we believe that the Judges opinions are wrong at times, because we see that they oppose Biblical standards and truths. So no matter how articulated their opinions are, they still stand in opposition to our views. That doesn’t answer a question but I hope articulates clearly that no matter what the courts reasoning is, this decision will forever stand in opposition.
17 On Jul 3rd, 2008, at 4:01am, Jarrot wrote:
In regards to your question in post #13. How long did the courts research & investigate? Because excuse me but a few years or even a few decades of observation doesn’t adequately reveal the full repercussions of an action of any sort. So for the courts to say they found “that it in no way affects opposite sex marriage” doesn’t convince me. The cultural acceptance of such ideals causes friction between subcultures. The Christian belief that homosexual relationships are not in the best interest of humanity will never change. It has biblical truth to it, unlike slavery and racism/separation. As its normality begins to set in more laws will follow preventing such vocalized beliefs against it. Homosexual marriages degrade our culture as a whole, no more than unmarried heterosexual sex. Since we don’t believe such marriages can exist biblical, it gives the cultural appearance that marriage is an obsolete institution for its main purpose. I await your response Mr Valdes.
18 On Jul 3rd, 2008, at 8:22am, Dan Valdes wrote:
Dear Jarrot,
As to your question, “How long did the courts research & investigate?” First the courts decide cases based on precedent so their research goes back through the history of court proceedings, sometimes even citing cases from other eras in time, however, in this particular case the court dealt namely with cases in the U.S. system.
The court didn’t adjudicate this case on religious tenets but rather upon civil liberty and equality issues. They found…
“Our state now recognizes that an individual’s capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual’s sexual orientation,” “An individual’s sexual orientation—like a person’s race or gender—does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights.”
19 On Jul 3rd, 2008, at 11:02am, Rick Hudgins, Jr. wrote:
Jarrot writes, “Because excuse me but a few years or even a few decades of observation doesn’t adequately reveal the full repercussions of an action of any sort.”
-I agree. However, we didn’t undergo multiple decades (or even a century) of social science research to determine the individual and societal effects of ending slavery, giving women the right to vote, and putting an end to racial segregation in our schools (which was, by the way, a *judicial* decision).
20 On Jul 3rd, 2008, at 11:21am, Rick Hudgins, Jr. wrote:
“Homosexual marriages degrade our culture as a whole, no more than unmarried heterosexual sex.”
-So work equally hard to propose and pass a constitutional amendment against heterosexual sex outside of marriage and institute so-called “church discipline” as indiscriminately against those who would engage in such activities as those who would be involved in same-sex (sexual) relationships. Christian immorality results, I would argue, from cherry-picking Biblical verses/passages in order to further solidify fear and abhorrence of particular minority groups.
21 On Jul 4th, 2008, at 8:04pm, David Asher wrote:
Just to include into our factual evidence for the spirit of debate, Representative Mark Leno from a San Francisco district twice introduced a bill into the state legislative in California that would allow “gender neutral” marriages between two people. Once was in 2005 and the other in 2007. It passed both times by comfortable margins and the governor vetoed it both times. So the will of the people of California isn’t so dramatically against same sex marriage or they wouldn’t have re-elected their representatives that passed the aforementioned bill in 2005 and therefore allowing it to pass again in 2007.
22 On Jul 17th, 2008, at 6:08am, Sherrill wrote:
It does not surprise me that this blog is riddled with comments from pro homosexual activists. I encourage Christians to be gentle as lambs and wise as serpents, but not deceived by what the Bible says on this matter. I will not be intimidated by demeaning remarks of those who support views opposing moral and ethical opinions. Those who scream loudest may win this spiritual battle for marriage if Christians stand by and do nothing.