The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission | California Ruling Impetus for Marriage Protection Amendment | Comments

Comment 1

Wed, 28 May 2008 16:39:18 CST

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.

Comment 2

Thu, 29 May 2008 15:19:22 CST

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.

Comment 3

Fri, 30 May 2008 08:51:32 CST

I really should have said that the differential treatment of marriage was necessary to serve the compelling state interest.

Comment 4

Sat, 31 May 2008 23:21:44 CST

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.