Wednesday, May 21, 2008

Tyrannical Judges Redefine Marriage

Dennis Prager certainly spells it out clearly in his article, CA Decision Will Radically Change Society.

Excerpts:


This lack of acknowledgment -- or even awareness -- of how society-changing is this redefinition of marriage is one reason the decision was made. To the four compassionate ones -- and their millions of compassionate supporters -- allowing same-sex marriage is nothing more than what courts did to end legal bans on interracial marriage. The justices and their supporters know not what they did. They think that all they did was extend a "right" that had been unfairly denied to gays.

Another reason for this decision is arrogance. First, the arrogance of four individuals to impose their understanding of what is right and wrong on the rest of society. And second is the arrogance of the four compassionate ones in assuming that all thinkers, theologians, philosophers, religions and moral systems in history were wrong, while they and their supporters have seen a moral light never seen before. Not a single religion or moral philosophical system -- East or West -- since antiquity ever defined marriage as between members of the same sex.

That is one reason the argument that this decision is the same as courts undoing legal bans on marriages between races is false. No major religion -- not Judaism, not Christianity, not Islam, not Buddhism -- ever banned interracial marriage. Some religions have banned marriages with members of other religions. But since these religions allowed anyone of any race to convert, i.e., become a member of that religion, the race or ethnicity of individuals never mattered with regard to marriage. American bans on interracial marriages were not supported by any major religious or moral system; those bans were immoral aberrations, no matter how many religious individuals may have supported them. Justices who overthrew bans on interracial marriages, therefore, had virtually every moral and religious value system since ancient times on their side. But justices who overthrow the ban on same-sex marriage have nothing other their hubris and their notions of compassion on their side.

Since the secular age began, the notion that one should look to religion -- or to any past wisdom -- for one's values has died. Thus, the modern attempts to undo the Judeo-Christian value system as the basis of America's values, and to disparage the Founders as essentially morally flawed individuals (They allowed slavery, didn't they?). The modern secular liberal knows that he is not only morally superior to conservatives; he is morally superior to virtually everyone who ever lived before him.

Which leads to a third reason such a sea change could be so cavalierly imposed by four individuals -- the modern supplanting of wisdom with compassion as the supreme guide in forming society's values and laws. Just as for religious fundamentalists, "the Bible says" ends discussion, for liberal fundamentalists, "compassion says" ends discussion.

If this verdict stands, society as we have known it will change. The California Supreme Court and its millions of supporters are playing with fire. And it will eventually burn future generations in ways we can only begin to imagine.



Traditional Jews and Christians -- i.e. those who believe in a divine scripture -- will be marginalized. Already Catholic groups in Massachusetts have abandoned adoption work since they will only allow a child to be adopted by a married couple as the Bible defines it -- a man and a woman.

Anyone who advocates marriage between a man and a woman will be morally regarded the same as racist. And soon it will be a hate crime.

Indeed -- and this is the ultimate goal of many of the same-sex marriage activists -- the terms "male" and "female," "man" and "woman" will gradually lose their significance. They already are. On the intellectual and cultural left, "male" and "female" are deemed social constructs that have little meaning. That is why same-sex marriage advocates argue that children have no need for both a mother and a father -- the sexes are interchangeable. Whatever a father can do a second mother can do. Whatever a mother can do, a second father can do. Genitalia are the only real differences between the sexes, and even they can be switched at will.

And what will happen after divorce -- which presumably will occur at the same rates as heterosexual divorce? A boy raised by two lesbian mothers who divorce and remarry will then have four mothers and no father.

We have entered something beyond Huxley's "Brave New World." All thanks to the hubris of four individuals. But such hubris never goes unanswered. Our children and their children will pay the price.

Remember how voting in Iraq was done while Saddam Hussein was in power? The farcical show of people placing their votes into the ballot box was shown on T.V., trying to make people in the U.S., and the world, think that these people "loved" their dictator. Later, the results of the ballot counting revealed that 100% of the people voted for Saddam!

Really?

Of course not! What an absolute sham. It was almost comical if it wasn't so serious. We saw through such deception. The people of Iraq were fearful for their lives if they did any differently. The brutal, tyrannical rule of one man in that country led people to dutifully cast their votes for him.

What happened back then in Iraq, though slightly different, was just as absurd as what happened through the CA Extreme Court here.

Think about this. Three judges voted against changing the thousands-of-years-old definition of marriage as being the union of one man and one woman. Four judges arbitrarily decided to do so. Three judges for it, and three judges against it, subsequently cancels out each of their votes. Therefore, the vote of one radical liberal leftist judge has, in essence, dictatorially succeeded in overturning the votes of more than 4 million voters in California who voted to keep the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

If that's not viewed as homosexual agenda tyranny, I don't know what would be.

HT: TownHall

22 comments:

Susan Smith said...

Dear Christine—

Thanks for posting this. Having practiced the sin of homosexuality for more than 20 years and also having practiced the sin of drunkenness for more than 30 years; I know God is using you to reveal more and more of His marvelous light.

Jesus delivered me completely. I am free today.

My prayer is for all to have ears to hear and eyes to see. There is no doubt, these words are precious and I would buy them as gold refined in the fire so I can become rich... (REV 3:18).

God bless you this day for continuing to be salt and light for the whole world. Much love to my “little” sister on the West coast... (ss)

Scott said...

Let me get this straight. A supreme court, 6 of 7 judges on it were nominated by Republican governors and confirmed by popular vote are "radical leftist judges"?

Their job is to decide whether laws are constitutional or not so when you actually read the CA Constitution, you come to a section that says this:

(b) A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges
or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens.
Privileges or immunities granted by the Legislature may be altered or
revoked.


Looks to me like these "radical left wing activist (fill in the blank)" judges were following the highest law of the state to the letter.

Just because you don't like it doesn't make it wrong.

Besides, why do I have to ask your permission to marry the person I am in love with?

Christinewjc said...

Dear Susan,

Your deliverance is marvelous proof of the power of God in our lives. When we are weak - He is strong. When we are faithless - He is faithful - and delivers us from evil.

Praise God!

Prayer is powerful! I am so thankful to have you, my faithful Christian sister, on the East Coast praying for us here in California!

Mr. Prager makes excellent points in his article. This terrible decision will not stand in California. The People will rise up against it in November and have their voices heard...loud and clear!

God bless with much love,
Christine

Christinewjc said...

Scott,

I suggest that you read this post. You will learn that "Republican" doesn't always mean Conservative.

Plus, many voters do not research the ideological leanings of judges before they vote. That is very unfortunate. As that article link demonstrates, Republicans in CA can't be trusted to represent the pro-family advocates. This just shows that we need to do our homework before voting them in.

However, when Prop. 22 was on the ballot in 2000, more than 61% (over 4 million voters) KNEW what they were voting for. The majority wanted to keep marriage as the union of one man and one woman as the only recognized definition of the word and the union in California.

Twenty-Eight other states have done similar voting to protect marriage and its definition.

Your argument does not hold water.

Marriage has always been defined as the union of one man and one woman. The court did not interpret the law, they made new law while re-defining what marriage is, and should always be. Four judges are now guilty of inventing homosexual "marriage" out of thin air.

Plus the fact that they overruled what the 61% majority voted for regarding this issue. This shows bitter disregard towards the will of the people in California.

If the same-sex "marriage" proponents really cared about the laws in this state, they wouldn't be working so hard to keep the CA Marriage Protection Act from being placed on the ballot in November. The reason they are against it is because they know it will be overturned.

You are in error regarding that segment of the CA Constitution. You have just as much right to marry as anyone else. Marriage is defined as a union of one man and one woman. You have the same right to marry any woman of your choice.

Personally, I don't care who you sleep with, have sex with, or live with. If you are a homosexual male who wants to be with another male, go right ahead. Just don't call it marriage...because it isn't. Make up your own word instead of re-defining ours.

4simpsons said...

Great article, Christine. That sums it up nicely.

"That is why same-sex marriage advocates argue that children have no need for both a mother and a father -- the sexes are interchangeable."

The "interchangeability" argument is one of the most transparently false and contradictory arguments the GLBTQ groups make. How can they argue that one's sex is absolutely paramount when choosing a lover but completely irrelevant when defining parents?

Scott said...

So you're having a fit over the word marriage?

That's kinda tough Christine. You don't own the word anymore, guess you'll have to divorce.

By the way, I'm going to keep calling my two gay friends who are raising a wonderful child a family if that's alright with you, since what other people call things seems to be so much of your business.

Is it ok if I keep calling my pants "jeans" or do you prefer dungarees. I don't want to offend.

Christinewjc said...

Neil wrote:

"The "interchangeability" argument is one of the most transparently false and contradictory arguments the GLBTQ groups make. How can they argue that one's sex is absolutely paramount when choosing a lover but completely irrelevant when defining parents?"

Excellent point and question! Makes me think that we should just drop that acronym, "GLBTQ groups" and call them what they are...desperately confused!!

Christinewjc said...

Scott wrote:

"Is it ok if I keep calling my pants "jeans" or do you prefer dungarees. I don't want to offend."

Is it OK if I call you a girlie man? Or, instead of "gay" if I label you SAD?

I don't want to offend.

Scott said...

You're free to call me anything you'd like to, it's a free country and I've got a pretty thick skin.

All I care about is that our state calls me equal under the law.

Christinewjc said...

So, you wouldn't mind if judges decide to change the meaning of the word "gay" and force everyone to rename you and all homosexuals as "SAD"?

Words do have specific meanings, don't they?

Christinewjc said...

Scott wrote: "All I care about is that our state calls me equal under the law."

A false premise is created when homosexuals try to equate re-defining marriage with civil rights issues.

The attack on our marriage laws are false "civil rights" arguments claiming that the common sense definition of marriage is on a par with racial bigotry. Dennis Prager clearly points out this deliberate, deceptive distortion in his article.

Rev. Sam Rodriguez, president of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference and advisory board member of the Alliance for Marriage said, "But ... there's nothing in our Constitution or adjudicated at the federal level that has defined marriage as [a] civil right, as [a] right of every citizen."

The "civil rights" deceptions are just a ruse being used by those who do not want the American people to be able to protect marriage for the sake of our children and grandchildren.

Scott said...

If you can find me a law on the books that uses the word gay I'd like to see it.

You're grasping honey. Why don't you just come out and say you don't like the decision because now those icky queers get to call themselves equal to you.

I'd at least applaud your honesty. Doing rational gymnastics to hide your bias isn't very flattering.

Christinewjc said...

You missed the subtle, but important point of my first comment. Then you entirely ignored my second one.

So, just who is really the one doing "rational gymnastics" in this conversation?

Scott said...

Tell you what Christine. The second you campaign to ban divorce completely or even better, to rename everyone who's been married more than once's relationship to something other than marriage then I'll believe you're genuine in your arguements.

I've shown you what the constitution of CA plainly states, you're choosing to ignore that.

Join me right now and we'll start a movement to ban people from having second marriages.

Sure, they can have the rights of marriage, but we'll just make them call it something else. How about legal adultery.

If you want to go down the road of defining other people's relationships based on what your bible says, lets go for all of it.

Otherwise, you're just somebody who needs to feel superior to other people and complaining about a word like a silly 4 year old.

Mark said...

Scott says That's kinda tough Christine. You don't own the word anymore, guess you'll have to divorce.

To re-define marriage is not the sign of a Govt correcting a wrong -it is clearly making a decree and a moral one at that! Marriage in fact means nothing but whatever the Govt decrees it to mean - the truth has become, in fact, a matter of opinion.

It is no wonder most folks are more comfortable with a lie than the truth - a very strong sign that we are headed not towards reason and debate - but the death of an objective view of what is true. Tolerance has become the new universal moral value, and ironically it is most assuredly the most intolerant to any objective view of truth.

If the Govt ordered that by law from this day forward an elephant shall now be called a diesel engine - there would be no logical difference. It has rendered the word meaningless.

Christinewjc said...

Scott: "Otherwise, you're just somebody who needs to feel superior to other people and complaining about a word like a silly 4 year old."

Does that mean that the 4 plus million voters in CA who also believe that marriage is defined as the union of one man and one woman are 4-year-olds too?

How about the millions in the 28 other states that voted likewise?

I think it has been revealed who the really childish one is in this discussion.

Christinewjc said...

Mark wrote, "It is no wonder most folks are more comfortable with a lie than the truth - a very strong sign that we are headed not towards reason and debate - but the death of an objective view of what is true. Tolerance has become the new universal moral value, and ironically it is most assuredly the most intolerant to any objective view of truth."

Yep...
Just as Scott's comments and insults here have so obviously demonstrated.

Scott said...

4 million votes out of 38 million residents?

Do you even understand what a constitutional republic is?

I think I know the answer but I'd be curious to have you explain what you think it means.

Christinewjc said...

Obviously, not every person in the state came out to vote. Not everyone is eligible (e.g. under age 18). Plus, we have millions of illegal aliens here in CA who are not eligible to vote.

As for the legal hispanic residents in CA are concerned, many feel the same way about marriage as what Rev. Sam Rodriguez, president of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference stated. See his quote in one of my previous comments.

The real battle here is about the definition of marriage or its redefinition. This is what Prop. 22 was about.

It is important to note that the 4.1 (approx.) million who did vote represented 61% of the voters who turned out to cast their votes in favor of Proposition 22. That means that only 39% voted against it. From what I recall in the news reports in the days leading up to that day, the "get out the vote" being led by homosexual activists and their cohorts was very powerful. Yet, they still lost.

I was reading this post today and thought this comment summed up the situation quite well:

NJRob (mail):
John and others,

it's clear that what the courts did in California was not rule according to the text of the California Constitution, but instead decided how they feel the law ought to be is what is truly important. If the ballot initiative passes, the court would not have the jurisdiction to overrule it according to Federal Law. That would be a case that would have to be decided by the Supreme Court. There was a reason for the separation of the Federal courts and State courts.

As for feeling that "separate but unequal" comes into play in this case. It doesn't matter how you feel. The courts job is not to make you feel better, to right injustice, to be the enlightened philosopher that decides what laws govern us all. It instead is required to decide cases according to existing law and existing precendent. When the courts decide to actually start following the law, then we will begin to reclaim our country.
5.21.2008 7:03am

mike rucker said...

obviously some strong feelings on both sides. we're at an interesting point in america - new wine perhaps trying to break out of old wineskins.

but the name-calling and clever put-downs (which, of course, are my normal bread and butter) don't help the debate any.

we're at a point where we have to decide whether we take a step in a different direction. do we let sociologists and psychiatrists tell us thirty years from now whether or not it worked? or do we fall back on the time-proven adage that those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it?

we're done with all the true/false and fill-in-the-blanks questions on our test; it's all essay questions from here...

mike rucker
fairburn, georgia, usa
mikerucker.wordpress.com

Scott said...

That still does not negate the fact that you can't explain to me how a Constitutional Republic works.

Wikipedia has an excellent article on the topic, I suggest you familiarize yourself with the concept before you begin to argue the "will of the people".

John said...

"As for feeling that "separate but unequal" comes into play in this case. It doesn't matter how you feel. The courts job is not to make you feel better, to right injustice, to be the enlightened philosopher that decides what laws govern us all. It instead is required to decide cases according to existing law and existing precendent. When the courts decide to actually start following the law, then we will begin to reclaim our country."

From Glenn Greenwald:

Contrary to this extremely confused argument, a court striking down a law supported by large majorities is not antithetical to our system of government. Such a judicial act is central to our system of government. That's because, strictly speaking, the U.S. is not a "democracy" as much as it is a "constitutional republic," precisely because constitutional guarantees trump democratic majorities. This is all just seventh-grade civics, something that ...those condemning the California court's decision on similar grounds seem to have forgotten.

The duty -- the central obligation -- of judges faithfully applying the law and fulfilling their core duties is to strike down laws that violate the Constitution, without regard to what percentage of the population supports that law, and without regard to whether it would be "better" in some political sense if democratic majorities some day got around to changing their minds about it. It's perfectly appropriate for, say, marriage equality advocates or political candidates to take into account whether it would be preferable, in some political or strategic sense, to achieve gay marriage incrementally or legislatively, only once there is majority support for it. But that is a completely inappropriate factor for a judge to consider, because the judge's sole consideration is whether the law is consistent with Constitutional protections.

Alexander Hamilton, in defining the core function of federal judges in Federalist 78, explained this as clearly as it could be explained (though apparently not clearly enough for some):

wherever a particular statute contravenes the Constitution, it will be the duty of the judicial tribunals to adhere to the latter and disregard the former.

When -- to use Hamilton's formulation -- judges "disregard" a "particular statute" in favor of constitutional guarantees, they aren't undermining our system of government. They're upholding it. The principal purpose of the Constitution is to prohibit the enactment of rights-abridging laws which, by definition (given that they are being democratically enacted), are supported by majorities. Anyone who argues that a court is acting improperly solely by virtue of the fact that it is striking down a popular law is someone who doesn't believe in the American system of government created by the Founders.