I am an American! As an American, I love the Constitution! So when a State Supreme Court says that the founding document of their state's government (and by extension, the national government) upholds marriage between a man and a man or a woman and a woman, I must emphatically say that I disagree!!
I reject the notion that such an idea could come from such a sensational document. I find it hard to believe that over a hundred years ago when that founding document was written, that the writers of that state's constitution envisioned a circumstance when their words would disgrace the sanctity of marriage by allowing it to be changed from the hallowed union between a man and a woman. Please remember that California was populated by Mexicans at the time of its admission into the Union. Catholicism was huge in the Mexican culture. Can you imagine that the Bishop in Mexico or the Pope would teach their followers to condone this type of disunion? I should think not. Thankfully, the current leadership of the Catholic Church in California continues to reject the idea that marriage is anything besides the union between a woman and a man. Here's an exerpt from a CNN article.
[The] Archdiocese of Los Angeles, California, issued a statement on behalf of seven bishops Monday, saying the Catholic Church "cannot approve of redefining marriage.'Marriage' has a unique place in God's creation, joining a man and a woman in a committed relationship in order to nurture and support the new life for which marriage is intended," the statement said. "The meaning of marriage is deeply rooted in history and culture, and has been shaped considerably by Christian tradition. Its meaning is given, not constructed."
I whole heartedly agree with the Catholic Church's position on this! In a sense, the Bishops are echoing words used by other church leaders in recent years (and throughout history):
We, the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children.
The Justices from the California Supreme Court ruled that a government regulation banning same-sex couples from obtaining a marriage license was unconstitutional. Their reasoning for that is so twisted it'll make your head turn. They ruled that since marriage has been identified as such a sacred right that it is unconstitutional to deny anyone the right to get married. Did you catch that? At first, it doesn't make sense. But then when you think about it, it starts to seem like it should make sense. However, in reality it doesn't make sense. Judges should be more responsible than that!! Let me illustrate.
This Christian Nation was founded on Christian principles. Hence, the references to God in our founding documents. As Christians, it is a part of Christianity to get married and teach our children to become Christians as well, right? Through the years, marriage has been a hallowed institution by this nation. In fact, our Federal Government was so protective of marriage that they sought to start a war with a little religious group who sought to have more than one wife. (ring any bells). They are still doing that today! (For examples, just google FLDS, Texas, polygamy). We can see that marriage is a special and protected institution. Now, here's where the messed up reasoning of the CA Supreme Court comes in. They said that because of the fact that marriage was so protected that it shouldn't be denied to anybody. They view marriage as an inalienable right protected under their constitution. Nowhere in their Constitution does it say that marriage is an inalienable right. The closest it comes is when they say that:
SECTION 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.
Now, you (and several thousands of other people) are probably thinking, well isn't this just the same thing as women's suffrage and civil rights? On the surface, it may seem that way. But different from race, sex, color, ethnicity, disability, etc, sexual orientation is not considered a protected class. The difference is that protected classes cannot change the biology of what they are. I can no more stop being white than I can stop being a man! My actions, however, I have complete control over.
I hope that we can realize that this is just one of the Adversary's tactics to twist up the words of our beloved Constitutions! Just like he manipulated God's words to Adam & Eve in the garden (See Moses 4:7, 10-11), he is trying to manipulate us to think that we should accept this type of ruling because it "protects" marriage by allowing everyone to have that chance. I am all for allowing everyone the chance to get married! But let it be as God ordained it in the beginning and not as man has constructed it.
-Cory-
Additional Information for your reading pleasure:
This is a quote from the Mayor of San Francisco about being able to perform a same-sex marriage today.
"This is an extraordinary moment in history," [San Francisco Mayor Gavin] Newsom told a cheering, standing-room-only crowd at City Hall. "I think today, marriage as an institution has been strengthened."
If you're interested in reading the opinion(s) of the Justices regarding this decision, here is the link where you can find it. I'll warn you now, it is a 172 page document.
In recognizing, however, that the right to marry is a basic, constitutionally protected civil right — “a fundamental right of free men [and women]” (Perez v. Sharp, supra, 32 Cal.2d 711, 714) —the governing California cases establish that this right embodies fundamental interests of an individual that are protected from abrogation or elimination by the state. Because our cases make clear that the right to marry is an integral component of an individual’s interest in personal autonomy protected by the privacy provision of article I, section 1, and of the liberty interest protected by the due process clause of article I, section 7, it is apparent under the California Constitution that the right to marry — like the right to establish a home and raise children — has independent substantive content, and cannot properly be understood as simply the right to enter into such a relationship if (but only if) the Legislature chooses to establish and retain it.
If you're interested in reading the opinion(s) of the Justices regarding this decision, here is the link where you can find it. I'll warn you now, it is a 172 page document.
In recognizing, however, that the right to marry is a basic, constitutionally protected civil right — “a fundamental right of free men [and women]” (Perez v. Sharp, supra, 32 Cal.2d 711, 714) —the governing California cases establish that this right embodies fundamental interests of an individual that are protected from abrogation or elimination by the state. Because our cases make clear that the right to marry is an integral component of an individual’s interest in personal autonomy protected by the privacy provision of article I, section 1, and of the liberty interest protected by the due process clause of article I, section 7, it is apparent under the California Constitution that the right to marry — like the right to establish a home and raise children — has independent substantive content, and cannot properly be understood as simply the right to enter into such a relationship if (but only if) the Legislature chooses to establish and retain it.
Chief Justice Ronald M. George, Majority Opinion, In Re MARRIAGE CASES, p.63
In discussing the constitutional right to marry in Perez v. Sharp, 32 Cal.2d 711 (Perez), then Justice Traynor in the lead opinion quoted the seminal passage from the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390. There the high court, in describing the scope of the “liberty” protected by the due process clause of the federal Constitution, stated that “ ‘[w]ithout doubt, it denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint, but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of one’s own conscience, and, generally, to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.’ ” (Perez, 32 Cal.2d at p. 714, italics added [“to marry” italicized by Perez], quoting Meyer, 262 U.S. 390, 399.) The Perez decision continued: “Marriage is thus something more than a civil contract subject to regulation by the state; it is a fundamental right of free men.” (Perez, 32 Cal.2d at p. 714.)
Chief Justice Ronald M. George, Majority Opinion, In Re MARRIAGE CASES, p.54
No comments:
Post a Comment