California Ruling Impetus for Marriage Protection Amendment
- May 28, 2008 - 4
Judicial activism has an interesting way of firing up social conservatives. Add marriage to the equation, and an outcry is almost sure to spark.
The firestorm unleashed in the immediate aftermath of the California Supreme Court’s outrageous decision May 15 to impose same-sex “marriage” on the state, overruling the voice of 61 percent of the people, has evidenced this clearly.
One week after the ruling, Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) and a band of other congressmen took steps to end this judicial lunacy once and for all by introducing a Marriage Protection Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to define marriage as only the union of one man and one woman.
Thanks to the four California judges who struck down a 2000 ballot initiative passed by 4.6 million voters to place strict parameters on traditional marriage, the Golden State now has the dubious distinction of becoming the second state to legalize same-sex “marriage.” But unlike its East Coast counterpart, Massachusetts, which permits only state residents to “marry,” California will permit same-sex couples from any state to cross into its borders and “marry.” Most assuredly, many of these “wedded” couples will return to their home states suing for recognition of their “marriages.” All too often as California goes, so goes the nation. We pray not this time.
Dissenting Justice Marvin R. Baxter rightly understands that the ruling is a slippery slope to further expansion of marriage. “Who can say that in 10, 15 or 20 years, an activist court might not rely on the majority’s analysis to conclude, on the basis of a perceived evolution in community values, that the laws prohibiting polygamous and incestuous marriages were no longer constitutionally justified?” he wrote.
Despite the judicial tyranny, public support for traditional marriage remains strong throughout the country. Twenty-seven states have passed state constitutional amendments defining marriage as only between one man and one woman by an average of almost 70 percent.
Even residents of California, long considered a bastion of liberal thought, support a state constitutional marriage amendment. A recent Los Angeles Times/KTLA poll shows that Californians support an amendment by a 54-35 percent margin. And marriage amendments have tended to do better than preliminary polling suggests. They will likely have the chance to approve a marriage amendment in November as more than 1.1 million signatures have been collected to put one on the ballot. Meanwhile, the Alliance Defense Fund is calling on the court to stay, or place on hold, the May 15 ruling until the people decide.
Until the U.S. Constitution protects marriage, Americans should continue to push for amendments to their state constitutions, which would have more, but not guaranteed, protections from the courts than does the 2000 California ballot measure.
Sadly, traditional marriage is not safe from the overreach of judges. Nor is it safe in states that have spoken by the will of the people. A federal amendment is the only real solution to keep black-robed judges in California and elsewhere from usurping the voice of the people to redefine marriage as designed by God and practiced in civilizations throughout the world for millennia.
Rep. Broun and his colleagues who joined him in introducing a federal amendment deserve applause for not retreating in a Congress largely hostile to the preservation of the family as ordained by God.
Traditional marriage has always been the backbone of our society and the best place to raise children. But as marriage is permitted to expand beyond the union of one man and one woman, its value will diminish and society as a whole will bear the consequences.
If you agree that marriage should be defined as only the union between one man and one woman, please urge your congressman to cosponsor Rep. Broun’s Marriage Protection Amendment.
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
4 comments (post your own) feed
1 On May 28th, 2008, at 4:39pm, Pastor Chris Clark wrote:
Doug,
Thank you for your column and your thoughts.
I wholeheartedly support such an amendment to the U.S. Constitution
However, this culture war has a more urgent battle than a federal amendment. I am referring to California’s battle to include a biblical definition of marriage in the state constitution.
I believe with all of my heart that the battle (and make no mistake, it IS a battle of epic proportions) will be decided in 2008 in California. If the California Marriage Protection Act is defeated in California, I believe there will not be much hope to pass a federal amendment. However, I do believe that the opposite will be true--if California passes this initiative, the move for a federal amendment will gain momentum.
Please, please please--consider this a Macedonian call--give us your prayers, your donations (protectmarriage.com), and your people, to rally the church in California to rise up and stand solidly for God’s definition of marriage.
2 On May 29th, 2008, at 3:19pm, Dan Valdes wrote:
The mostly Republican appointed California court rightly declared this a civil rights issue and not a religious issue. They carefully considered the opinion and found that the state did not have a “compelling state interest” nor was the differential treatment of Domestic Partnership “necessary to serve that compelling state interest.”
The opinion was based on precedent and they were right to point out that earlier courts found that laws banning interracial marriages were equally discriminatory.
They found that not allowing gay marriage will “impose appreciable harm on same sex couples and their children” because it underlies prejudices and denies the importance of same sex relationships by the very nature of having two separate institutions.
It’s a privacy issue and a civil liberty issue.
3 On May 30th, 2008, at 8:51am, Dan Valdes wrote:
I really should have said that the differential treatment of marriage was necessary to serve the compelling state interest.
4 On May 31st, 2008, at 11:21pm, Harry Rockefeller wrote:
Dan’s view is, unfortunately, the legally correct one. He sums it up well. I would add two things: 1) that the U.S. Constitution (USC) permits restriction of liberty only for one who breaks the law. The Lawrence v Texas sodomy case set the legal precedent declaring homosexual acts not against the law. It follows then that by the USC discrimination of civil liberty for homosexuals is illegal. 2) By seeking a USC amendment instead of impeachment, supporters of this marriage protection amendment admit the current USC supports the very decision of this California court. It’s *not* judicial activism.
My question for supporters of this amendment are what’s next? Amendments to: prevent homosexuals from adopting children? prevent homosexuals from taking public school teaching positions? keep “under God” in our pledge? put back prayer in schools?
Pastor Chris Clark is right. It is a battle of epic proportions but Christians don’t understand the nature of the battle.