A Day of Shame in California

Yesterday was a shameful day in California. For on that day, the California Supreme Court ruled that a law defining marriage as the union between one man and one woman is unconstitutional.

This is outrageous. Christianity and every other major religion speaks for marriage in this way. Furthermore, overwhelmingly passed in 2000 by the constituents of California was Proposition 22, a statue protecting traditional marriage, defining marriage as being between one man and one woman.

In handing yesterday’s decision, these four liberal judges blatantly disregarded the will of the people. Justices Marvin Baxter, Ming Chin and Carol Corrigan dissented.


Justice Ming Chin Justice Marvin Baxter Justice Carol Corrigan

Justice Baxter writes:

The court majority “does not have the right to erase, then recast, the age-old definition of marriage, as virtually all societies have understood it, in order to satisfy its own contemporary notions of equality and justice.

I’m certainly far from the only person feeling outrage about this development.

The president of the Campaign for Children and Families, reacted with dismay, insisting “marriage is naturally for a man and a woman.”

“If the institution of marriage is redefined and therefore destroyed in the law, the wellbeing of children is threatened, both emotionally, socially, even physically,” Thomasson added.

A coalition of religious and social conservative groups have vowed to attempt to add a vote calling for a ban on same-sex marriage when California goes to the polls in November’s election.

Perhaps our shame can be mitigated, and this unrighteous and unfair ruling will be reversed.

____________________________________________________________________________________

My devotional blog is here.

17 thoughts on “A Day of Shame in California

  1. “The dominant issue here is that judges have set aside the vote of the people. In your thinking should the referendum process be abolished? Why have a vote if judges are able to negate its results?”

    This doesn’t answer the question I posed. When judges set aside the vote of the people in cases in which the people had voted to allow euthanasia, were you upset? If judges overturn the people when the people vote to allow gay marriage, will you disagree?

    The point is that we live in a constitutional republic, not an absolute democracy. We don’t take a vote every other week to determine whether people have the right to free speech. Things like referendums are balanced by other branches and processes of government. If a referendum says to do something, but the state constitution says otherwise, the constitution wins out until people undertake the proper procedures to change it (as some states have).

    My point is that decrying the “will of the people” being ignored is pointless. People decry it when its to their favor and don’t when it isn’t.

    Like

  2. Shirley, I reported this story at my radio station when it came out and it was hard to choke down.
    I really do believe we are THAT MUCH CLOSER TO THE RETURN OF CHRIST!!
    Now, as a Christian, that excites me of course, but on the other hand, I am saddened as so many will be lost.
    We are on the verge of something happening, I don’t know what, but I think it’s close.
    We MUST reach people for Christ before it is too late!

    Like

  3. renaissanceguy

    Shirley, I wrote on this subject today, mostly about the false comparison between interracial marriage and same-sex “marriage”. I’d appreciate your thoughts and support, when you have time.

    RGuy, I have been surprised to see this argument presented. It is in no way logical. I’ll be over to talk about it.

    Like

  4. Arrrgh!!!
    Time is like a speed bullet train these days…
    Look up and work fast, it’s harvest time!

    One thing that is great about living in the last days is that we are privileged to be involved in the abundant harvest. What joy! Have a blessed day tomorrow.

    Like

  5. Agreed, sick! Things have changed so fast over the past few years. It seems like the world is going down hill. Probably because we’re closer than ever to the rapture. In the last day perilous times shall come…it’s sad to watch all this happen though.

    The rapture! We must be ready, Jen. All else pales by comparison.

    Like

  6. renaissanceguy

    I would like to respond to Bad.

    First, California is unusual because of its referendum process. Under the state Constitution, the people have the right to pass a law by popular vote.

    Second, courts in the United States were not created to strike down laws because they personally disagree with them. They were created to interepret and apply laws according to the text of the Constitution.

    Third, speaking for myself the answer to your question is that I would not like it if the court had struck down a law that was for same-sex marriage. If the people of California want to allow same-sex marriage, then the court would not have the right to usurp their will. I wouldn’t like it if California residents passed such a referendum, but until we amend our national Constitution, nothing says that a state cannot do such a thing.

    Thank you, RGuy

    Agree with your response.

    Like

  7. Sis. Buxton,

    Totally agree with you. Sick! Hopefully they can add an admendment onto the State Constitution this coming fall when they place the vote to actually add the amendment onto the ballots so that voters can once again say what they think. This is the only way to stop this ruling by the court, is if it goes onto the ballot and we vote to add the amendment to the Constitution banning it. Pray it passes.

    Hello, Tyler. Thanks for stopping by my blog.

    I think I already mentioned this somewhere, but as our culture becomes ever more liberal and leftist, I wonder how long we will have a majority in California who will pass this. We must speak out and work quickly on this issue. I understand quite a movement is underway.

    Like

  8. Clark Bunch

    I don’t know if California has any shame left. Remeber the “under God” case a few years ago regarding the Pledge? The father involved in that case had tried in Florida, but failed to have “under God” declared unconsitutional. So out all the other states in the country, he decided he had the best chances in California. No kidding; this guy moved from Florida to California so he could be offended there by the pledge and take it court. San Fransico is in California, I mean come on. That’s been a Mecca for gays since the 60’s.

    Your points are well taken. I cringed yesterday, when I heard the mayor of Los Angeles cheering about this ruling, and saying he would marry as many same-sex couples as he could.

    Like

  9. Esther

    This is just another issue in a long list of issues. I fail to see the difference in this law than if it were allowed for brother and sister to be married, or father and daughter, etc. etc. Makes me glad to be in Mississippi. But, it’ll get here too.

    Sadly, as California goes, often goes the nation.

    Like

  10. Pingback: You’re kidding, right? « Land of a Thousand Words

  11. tenthredemption

    the california supreme court ruled that a law NOT defining marriage as the union between two human beings that love each other is unconstitutional, regardless of their sex.

    if it is the CHURCH that defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman as you have so stated, then it is up to that CHURCH to turn away the union of one man to another…or one woman to another.

    i, as a gay man, will respect any church that wishes not to unite me under God with my partner because i respect a CHURCH’s individual beliefs. but the government should not deny a church the right to sanctify my marriage if it is that specific church’s belief to allow it and celebrate it as it should be.

    Love is love. Jesus Christ Himself preaches this.

    it is NOT the government’s say in what any church does. there is separation of church and state for a reason.

    Hello, Tenth…(yes, I think you were respectful. Thank you.)

    The churches I am affiliated with will not marry a woman to a woman or a man to a man…..so at least you have found one.

    As far as I know, even before yesterday, no one was saying that same-sex couples could not love each other, live together, work and play in the same home…etc. My personal thoughts is that such a union is contrary to scripture and is detrimental to our society. But I would never say you do not have the right to live in such a way. That indeed is your choice and your right.

    Marriage, though, is another thing, and throughout history–in all major religions–in all cultures has been between one man and one woman. It’s a slippery slope, Tenth. If government sanctioned marriage can be between any two people, both polygamy and incest must logically be included.

    Like

  12. “these four liberal judges blatantly disregarded the will of the people.”

    If it had been the other way around, that the people had passed a law allowing gay marriage, and judges overturned it, would you be making the same argument? When judges overturned the will of the people in the famous Loving case, were you against that ruling as well?

    I’m not saying that you cannot be against gay marriage, I just question the consistency of this particular piece of rhetoric. We live in a constitutional republic, not an absolute democracy, and the transitory will of the people is not the only thing that matters in our system of government.

    Thanks for your comments here. Hope you return often.

    I defend any one’s right to be homosexual, although I personally believe it to be wrong according to the bible, and that such unions would prove detrimental to our society.

    The dominant issue here is that judges have set aside the vote of the people. In your thinking should the referendum process be abolished? Why have a vote if judges are able to negate its results?

    Like

  13. Yes, it is a shame, and I felt sick when I read about it yesterday. It’s the children that suffer most in decisions like these. I pray that this will be overturned in November.

    Carol, we must pray and continue to speak out against such as this. My fear, though, is that as time passes, it will be ever more difficult for righteousness to be reflected by the voters of California.

    Like

  14. I could not agree with you more!!!

    We have witnessed once more the judges make, altering or changing the written law of the state, when their area of expertise is to explain the law.

    Mervi

    It’s terrifying.

    Like

  15. God calls it an abomination….. so sad.

    Shawnna, the generations before us were so much wiser than are we. Think about it: Only a few years ago–even in my lifetime, and possibly yours–there would never have arisen the question of marriage being anything other than between one man and one woman.

    The tendency toward evil has been forever with humanity, though, and surely God saw this problem way back in the Old Testament, when indeed homosexuality was called an abomination.

    It sickens me to think that my marriage vows of more than 50 years between Jerry and me–and the shorter ones between you and Andrew–will now be categorized with men and men relationships, and women and women unions. It’s just not right.

    Stay concerned. Continue speaking out. I shudder to think what kind of a society my grandchildren will face.

    Love you–

    Like

  16. It’s just such a shame.

    Jayleigh, it’s not only shameful, but frightening. These judges have completely ignored the will of the majority of California citizens.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s