The start of the challenge to Proposition 8 in California has been in the news lately sparking a considerable number of questions about its nature. People say, “I thought that matter was resolved by the voters. How can there be a challenge again? What can the proponents of same-sex ‘marriage’ possibly argue now?”
If you are one of those a bit confused by the news, you are not alone. It would certainly be reasonable for anyone to think the challenges to marriage would have ceased after the voters made it perfectly clear that they want marriage in California to be recognized only as the union between one man and one woman. But the fact is that the enemies of marriage will never cease to attack traditional marriage until society, not only accepts their relationships, but in fact promotes them as good and desirable.
To them, constitutions, laws and votes do not matter. Blinded by their ambition, they will trample on anything or anyone to obtain what they want. This case is a prime example. Proponents of same-sex “marriage” seek to overturn the will of the people after their efforts to defeat the constitutional amendment that protected marriage failed miserably.
In the new case, Perry v. Schwarzenegger,1 proponents of same-sex “marriage” have filed suit in federal court, arguing that Proposition 8 -California’s Marriage Amendment-violates the U.S. Constitution. The previous case (In re Marriage Cases2) where the California Supreme Court upheld same-sex “marriage,” held that a California law (not the constitution) which defined marriage as the union between one man and one woman violated the state’s constitution.
Today, after Proposition 8 passed, section 7.5 of article I of California’s Constitution provides that “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” Proponents of same-sex “marriage,” running out of options, have therefore gone to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California to argue that that part of California’s Constitution violates the U.S. Constitution. They specifically argue that it violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Of course, all their arguments rest on the idea that sexual orientation is an immutable characteristic like race and should be treated as such. By their reasoning a bisexual man who is “in-love” with a man and a woman should be able to marry them both. There is no other way around it, no matter how much they would want to cover that fact.
This case should be relatively simple for any judge. As a self-governing nation, the power should ultimately rest with “we the people.” And there is no question that the state has a multitude of compelling reasons for protecting marriage as the union between one man and one woman. Stable traditional marriages and families have served as the foundation for children and society throughout our history. Nothing in the law would even suggest that there is a problem with the voters of California protecting marriage as they see fit.
But the fact is that we have seen before how judicial activists that see themselves as God’s tool for the cultural and legal “advancement” of society can take the law in their own hands and even circumvent the will of the people in order to bring what the see as “progress.”
So if someone asks you what this case is about, you let them know that it is about much more than just whether or not to allow same-sex “marriages.” It is about our form of government. We will see if we are still a self-governing nation, or whether we have lost even more of our freedoms to judicial tyranny.
End Notes
- Perry v. Schwarzenegger, Case No. 09-CV-2292 VRW
- In re Marriage Cases, 183 P.3d 384 (Cal.2008)