James Lambert
Once again Calif. voters disenfranchised by courts
By James Lambert
As a long time California resident, I am ashamed that our federal court of appeals continues to deny voters of their right of choice. Such was the case on Tuesday when the courts ruled that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional in denying homosexual marriage. The court rejected the affirmative vote for traditional marriage by over seven million Californians.
Remember marriage? It's an institution that practically goes back to the beginning of man's time on earth. Despite the claims of numerous gay activists, Jesus himself defined the institution in Matthew 19:4-6. So have many other cultures through man's history. The institution of marriage has served to stabilize society. It is the most successful social structure whereby our children are raised. The court now tells us that denying same sex couples access to the institution of marriage is discriminatory? Hey, Mr. Judge, have you ever heard of civil unions? For all intents and purposes California state civil unions serve the same purpose — but currently as a society we do not "call" or "label" these unions as marriage.
What concerns me most is that this issue (in national terms) may well be ultimately decided by the Courts. The states, their voters and their legislatures could now be left out of the equation. If appealed, the courts will take up this issue and decide the issue themselves. Realizing this we must elect political leaders who nominate judges who follow the US Constitution instead of interpreting it to fit their political viewpoint. That's why it's important to pay attention to our political candidates when we vote during each election cycle.
However, the result of our country potentially adopting gay marriage has far deeper consequences than most people realize. Once the definition of marriage is changed anything goes. For example, in a 2005 Nadine Strossen (the then President of the ACLU) indicated that among the "fundamental rights" of people is the right to polygamous relationships. In a little reported speech offered at Yale University, Strossen said that her organization has "defended the right of individuals to engage in polygamy." The Yale Daily News said that Strossen was responding to a "student's question about gay marriage, bigamy, and polygamy."
Many conservatives and defenders of traditional marriage predict that eventually "other shoes will drop" if homosexual marriage is legalized including legalizing polygamy and a renewed legal effort to redefine and eventually loosen the definition of child-adult relationships.
Unfortunately, this is the slippery slope that we are now on. It's time for us to recognize this and make the best choice we can in choosing our officials (whether they be in our city, state or national governments).
James L. Lambert's new book "16 Amazing Stories of Divine Intervention" is being released this month! (www.16AmazingStories.com )
© James Lambert
As a long time California resident, I am ashamed that our federal court of appeals continues to deny voters of their right of choice. Such was the case on Tuesday when the courts ruled that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional in denying homosexual marriage. The court rejected the affirmative vote for traditional marriage by over seven million Californians.
Remember marriage? It's an institution that practically goes back to the beginning of man's time on earth. Despite the claims of numerous gay activists, Jesus himself defined the institution in Matthew 19:4-6. So have many other cultures through man's history. The institution of marriage has served to stabilize society. It is the most successful social structure whereby our children are raised. The court now tells us that denying same sex couples access to the institution of marriage is discriminatory? Hey, Mr. Judge, have you ever heard of civil unions? For all intents and purposes California state civil unions serve the same purpose — but currently as a society we do not "call" or "label" these unions as marriage.
What concerns me most is that this issue (in national terms) may well be ultimately decided by the Courts. The states, their voters and their legislatures could now be left out of the equation. If appealed, the courts will take up this issue and decide the issue themselves. Realizing this we must elect political leaders who nominate judges who follow the US Constitution instead of interpreting it to fit their political viewpoint. That's why it's important to pay attention to our political candidates when we vote during each election cycle.
However, the result of our country potentially adopting gay marriage has far deeper consequences than most people realize. Once the definition of marriage is changed anything goes. For example, in a 2005 Nadine Strossen (the then President of the ACLU) indicated that among the "fundamental rights" of people is the right to polygamous relationships. In a little reported speech offered at Yale University, Strossen said that her organization has "defended the right of individuals to engage in polygamy." The Yale Daily News said that Strossen was responding to a "student's question about gay marriage, bigamy, and polygamy."
Many conservatives and defenders of traditional marriage predict that eventually "other shoes will drop" if homosexual marriage is legalized including legalizing polygamy and a renewed legal effort to redefine and eventually loosen the definition of child-adult relationships.
Unfortunately, this is the slippery slope that we are now on. It's time for us to recognize this and make the best choice we can in choosing our officials (whether they be in our city, state or national governments).
James L. Lambert's new book "16 Amazing Stories of Divine Intervention" is being released this month! (www.16AmazingStories.com )
© James Lambert
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
