Missouri Baptists cast wary eyes toward Calif., New York actions
- Jun 28, 2008 - comment
JEFFERSON CITY, Mo.—The hopes of Missouri Baptists and other pro-life citizens across America that a stay would be secured through the California Supreme Court concerning its May 15 decision legalizing same-sex marriage in that state were dashed June 4.
The ruling appears to open the door to court challenges against statutory laws protecting traditional marriage in other states. Homosexuals will now be able to receive civil marriage licenses in California starting June 16. The Office of Vital Records advised all 58 California counties June 5 that they can begin issuing the licenses June 16 at 5:01 p.m.
Ten attorneys general had filed a brief May 29 in California asking for the stay. Later Missouri Attorney General Jay Nixon, a Democrat, joined them. Nixon was urged to do so for three days by Republican Gov. Matt Blunt but said his decision had “very little to do” with Blunt’s “political chattering” on the issue, according to the Springfield News-Leader.
Blunt is dismayed by the prospect of same-sex “marriages” taking place in the nation’s most populous state in a very few days.
“It is disappointing that the California Supreme Court would not delay their decision on same-sex marriage until after the voters of California decide again on this issue,” he said.
Because the law has no residency requirement for marriage, a couple from one state could come to California and get married before trying to have their “marriage” recognized in their home state. It is generally held that states with constitutional protection for marriage would not be harmed by this tactic, and Nixon is stating publicly that this would be the case in Missouri. The attorney general backed the 2004 Missouri marriage amendment that passed by a 71 percent vote of the people and clearly codified that marriage shall exist only between a man and a woman.
“Missouri does not recognize same-sex marriages performed in California or any other state,” said Nixon spokesman Scott Holste June 3 in a Kansas City Star article.
The rationale behind asking for a stay was that California voters in November will get to vote on the California Marriage Protection Act, which is a constitutional amendment to protect traditional marriage. It is a long-held tenet of our democratic republic that the people, not a handful of judges in black robes, have the final word. A total of 26 states, including Missouri, have approved constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage, according to the Associated Press.
John Holstein, a retired Missouri State Supreme Court Chief Justice and a member of Second Baptist Church, Springfield, said the California Supreme Court acted in step with a recent judicial trend that favors evolving law based on cultural standards and popular whims.
“A significant number of legal scholars take the position that original intent is the only anchor that we can hold onto in defining what the constitution means,” Holstein said. “If the people want to change the state or federal constitution, there are means to do that, but having judges tag changes onto the constitution that were not written in there and not intended by the folks that adopted the constitution is just arrogance and hubris.
“It’s hard to know where we’re going. If I had guessed 20 years ago where we are today, at least, in the law of California, I think I would have said, ‘No, that will never happen.’ But ever since Roe v. Wade it’s been all about evolving the standards. Whenever I see that word in a judicial opinion it’s just like fingernails on a blackboard to me.”
Phil Gloyer, a layman from Forest Park Baptist Church in Joplin who serves as chairman of the Christian Life Commission (CLC) of theMissouri Baptist Convention (MBC), acknowledged the activist nature of the ruling.
“In a dissenting opinion, Justice Baxter was right to call this opinion an ‘exercise in legal jujitsu’ in which the court imposed its own will over the expressed will of the people of California,” Gloyer said.
In 2000, 61 percent of California voters supported Proposition 22, a statutory defense of marriage.
It has been generally accepted that the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) ensures that one state need not treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state. But the opposite effect may be about to become true in New York, where Gov. David Paterson has directed all state agencies to revise their policies and regulations to recognize same-sex “marriages” as legal in the state. Failure to do so, he said, could result in sanctions for violations of New York human rights law, according to LifeSiteNews.com.
Based on its governor’s directive, New York is now favoring recognizing same-sex “marriages” performed in California, Massachusetts and Canada.
“I think he’s just going someplace that neither the statutes nor laws, nor constitutional provisions, permit,” Holstein said.
Missouri remains opposed to such an expansion of non-traditional, non-biblical unions.
“Missourians overwhelmingly believe that marriage is between one man and one woman,” Blunt said.
This article is reprinted from the June 17, 2008, issue of The Pathway, the newsjournal of the Missouri Baptist Convention.
Further Learning
Learn more about: Family, Marriage, Sexual Purity, Homosexuality, Citizenship, Legislation