California, here we go again. . .
California is once again revisiting the debate over “Prop 8,” the ballot measure that amended the state constitution to reinstate the ban on same-sex marriage that the court threw out last year. This morning I was speaking with a good friend at the gym where I work out. He is a self-described libertarian, but I would classify him more as an antinomian. Now he is a pretty conservative guy, but on these sort of issues, he has some views that would be typically considered very liberal. (But he is a great guy, and I owe him a lot as I have been striving to lose weight for my upcoming National Guard appointment.)
My friend’s position is that no one has the right to impose their standard on any one else’s personal moral choices, and therefore, Prop 8 should be struck down. Now, I agree with him most of the time. I heartily agree that the government should have no role in granting who can and cannot be married. I also agree that the majority does not rule, but that we are a constitutional republic, governed by the rule of law. But that’s not what this debate is about. Nor is the debate about the violation of anyone’s civil rights. Any gay man or woman has the same right to marry any other person, of the opposite sex, because that’s what a marriage is. Any other type of arrangement, except that of two people (not animals, or plants) of opposite sexes, is simply not a marriage. This discussion then, is fundamentally about the definition of marriage.
As stated before, on this blog, no government agency, or human agency has the right to define marriage. It has been defined once and for all, by God. (See my posting on McCain on the Ellen show, from May of 2008). The Bible has already defined marriage in the early chapters of the book of Genesis, and as I said then, if anyone does not recognize the Bible as authority, we could talk about “natural law.” There we have a slam dunk. Homosexual couples cannot procreate, thus ending any hope of a process of evolution, or even continued existence. As the Bible says, even nature itself teaches us that homosexuality is a perversion and an abomination.
So the question then is, who says? Who’s Bible is right? Who’s “god” gets to define marriage? The founders would have said the God of the Bible. Contrary to modern misguided, publicly educated and indoctrinated opinion, this nation was not founded as an atheistic humanistic secular state. It was founded upon Judeo-Christian ethics and principles. (NB: According to Colin Rhys Lovell’s English Constitutional and Legal History, published by New York: Oxford University Press, 1962, pp 3-50, the “People’s Law,” as practiced by the 16th-17th century Anglo-Saxons who came to America and founded our nation considered only four offenses to be committed against the whole society and therefore, capital offenses: treason, cowardice, desertion, and HOMOSEXUALITY [emphasis added]). The United States of America was never intended to be a secular, or atheistic, humanist state. The concept of separation of church and state as defined by our founders in the U.S. Constitution states simply that “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion, nor denying the free exercise thereof.” The intent was to prevent the Congress of the United States (not any state government or local municipality) from establishing a state church, as in England, or to give preference at the federal level, to any particular religious sect or denomination. To suggest that any law remotely based on the Bible is therefore unconstitutional is patently absurd. All laws are based on someone’s spiritual beliefs.
Let me illustrate. Although my friend believes it is wrong to impose a standard of morality, or a definition of marriage that is based on the Bible, he also decries the notion that “might makes right.” He clearly does not believe in lawlessness; no one does. He would be quick to object to a person attacking his wife, robbing his property or stealing his truck, just because that person was bigger and stronger than him. In fact, at his club, we are not even allowed to take magazines into the washroom, or spit in the drinking fountain. (FASCIST!) But all of those laws, against assault, robbery, or thievery, are based on the Decalogue, as given by Moses from Jehovah God, in the Bible. Everyone must look to some ULTIMATE AUTHORITY.
So Who, or what might that be? Well, for me, it’s God. (For everyone else it’s God too, whether or not they know it, but let me concede the point for sake of argument). In the United States, and even in California, the ultimate source of authority is the Constitution. So, back to California, and Prop 8. The problem facing the California Supreme Court is that they ruled a law unconstitutional, as is their purview. They determined that the state’s ban on same-sex “marriage” was unconstitutional. Fair enough. Then the people voted to amend the state constitution, so as to ban same-sex “marriages” as is their purview. The Supreme Court ought not to be able to declare an amendment to the Constitution, unconstitutional. That is absurd. The reason is that the ultimate authority is not the Supreme Court, but the constitution. The same constitution that grants authority to the court to rule as they had in the earlier decision. The Constitution is written by and ratified by the people. In a democracy, the authority is vested in the people. It’s not mob rule, because it is not a pure democracy. It is a constitutional republic. The constitution rules. The RULE OF LAW. So if the court is not subject to the authority of the state constitution, and bound by its duly established amendments, then they truly are not a constitutional democracy or republic, but an oligarchy. The California Supreme Court might as well declare themselves sovereign and make themselves immune from all laws and prosecution. They are above the Law! But that’s not America!
Is the current law unjust? Well if a majority of the people believe it to be, they can change it in a constitutionally prescribed process to amend their constitution, which they did. But the court cannot then rule the Constitution unconstitutional! Have we had constitutional amendments that have been wrong? Sure. We reversed them, or repealed them, but it was a harder process, by design, than just passing legislation, or the court striking down the same legislation. A constitutional amendment takes longer, and requires a super-majority, on purpose, so that once it is in place, it will stand.
For example, at present there are laws on the books in every state prohibiting abortion. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that there is an alleged right to abortion in the Constitution, striking down those laws. So I support a Constitutional amendment in defense of life, that would once and for all settle the matter. I, and those who share my view, have not yet been able to get it done, but we’ll keep trying to persuade and change public opinion and hope to one day pass such an amendment to the U.S. Constitution. That’s what the gay “marriage” people need to do. Nothing is stopping them. The court, however has no authority to declare an amendment to the Constitution unconstitutional!
So what business is it of mine if two consenting adults of the same sex want to be “married?” Well, as a pastor, I wonder if I would have to recognize, or even perform such “marriages?” Would my opposition, based on my Scriptural convictions be protected in Gay Marriage America? What if I don’t believe in gay adoption? Would Christian adoption agencies such as the Baptist Children’s Home be forced to place children in the homes of a gay couple? Would we be able to say that only married couples can adopt, and that marriage is between a man and wife, a mother and father?
Would marriages in California, or Massachusetts have to be recognized in other “non-gay marriage” states? Here we go again! Haven’t we been down that road in the Civil War days, over slavery? Or what about multiple marriage partners? Why, if marriage is not between a man and a woman, can’t it be between a man and several women (hello Utah)? Where does it end? Here we go again!
Two consenting adults can do whatever they please in the privacy of their own homes, and ought not to be threatened by intrusion by the government. But the government (remember, of the people, for the people, and by the people) ought not to be required by a small, unelected ruling body, such as any state supreme court to sanction their behavior, or be punished for opposing it on moral grounds.
This debate is about 1) the definition of marriage, 2) ultimate authority, and 3) the insistence of a minority of the sanctioning of a lifestyle that most in this country believe to be objectionable, immoral and aberrant. The gay community will never be satisfied until their lifestyle is endorsed and approved by the state, and eventually by the church.
Isaiah 5: 20