Paul A. Ibbetson
Gay marriage: court decisions from Sodom and Gomorrah
By Paul A. Ibbetson
In a recent court decision, California's Proposition 8 initiative, which stated that marriage was to be between a man and a woman, has been struck down as unconstitutional. As reported by Fox News, the decision that overruled the voters of California was made by openly gay U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker. Walker, one of three openly gay federal judges in the country, said that the people's choice in California for traditional marriage was unconstitutional because "Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples." Of course, homosexuals around the country dance in glee at the new court decision amidst the flutter of rainbow flags, while appeals and other court battles over the gay marriage question prepare to begin.
Today, to oppose the destruction of traditional values is to violate the less-than-silent-but-always-growing edict of political correctness. So in the spirit of being overly fair to gay marriage proponents, let us revisit Judge Walker's rationale for overturning the country's long-standing tradition of marriage. Judge Walker states on the issue of marriage that opposite-sex couples must not be seen as superior to same-sex couples. The word "superior" is commonly defined as having a higher importance, above the average in merit, or being of higher quality, to name a few. So using Judge Walker's argument on couples, is traditional marriage of higher importance than gay marriage? From the standpoint of Californians, it most certainly is. In one of the most liberal states in the country the people rose up to defend traditional marriage in November 2008. The importance of this issue was so strong that the people took action to correct the decisions of their liberal courts within five months of the state Supreme Court's legalization of gay marriage. They did this legally through the voting process, and traditional marriage won because of its importance to the voters of California.
Is opposite-sex marriage higher in merit than same-sex marriage? Turning to our Judeo-Christian foundations, the answer is swift and absolute. Homosexuality is stated clearly within the Bible as an act of sin and an abomination to God (Leviticus 18:22). Furthermore, Romans 1:26-27 observes the shameful, unnatural indecency of the homosexual union. If merit, the claim to respect and praise, is still in question, 1 Corinthians 6:9 leaves no doubt that homosexuality is unrighteous, and those who engage in this activity will be rejected from the kingdom of heaven. Far beyond damning what Judge Walker wishes to lift up in gay marriage, the Bible, from its opening pages (Genesis 2:24) throughout (1 Corinthians 7:2-16, Ephesians 5:23-33), clearly states that marriage is between a man and a woman.
Lastly, is opposite-sex marriage of higher quality than same-sex marriage? Since Judge Walker has rejected the will of the people of California to decide this issue, and he undoubtedly would wish to avoid addressing the biblical ramifications of his court decision, we are left with the matter of the constitutionality of gay-ifying the institution of marriage in America. Unfortunately for Judge Walker's position, like a remote island filled with only gays or lesbians, in time you are left with nothing but the truth. The truth is that Judge Walker's constitutionality argument is brought around again to face the findings from points one and two.
Despite the attempts of liberal activist judges to recreate the Constitution as a morally relativistic reed that blows wildly in the direction of their personal agendas and deviant desires, the law remains steadfast as a document of the American people infused with our culturally engrained Judeo-Christian values from its inception. It is from these values that the Constitution is unique. It is from these values that we as a nation have been blessed so fully. Most importantly, it is from these values that the people fight today to maintain the fundamental viability of American culture through the observance of traditional marriage.
The court decision from U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker is far worse than an improper reading of the Constitution, it is an over attack on American culture, which the Constitution was meant to safeguard. This attack on traditional marriage is nothing short of more legislation from the court benches of Sodom and Gomorrah. So, while gays and lesbians exalt Judge Walker's court ruling in all its glitter-covered, spandexed glory, the judge's own words are revisited, and a conclusion can be extracted. Yes, Proposition 8 did "enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples" on the matter of marriage. It does so factually, reasonably, biblically, and constitutionally. Meanwhile, the majority of Americans have to decide either to take on a long, nasty battle to keep marriage traditional, or to stand silently as pillars of salt while America quickly becomes something radically other than America.
© Paul A. Ibbetson
August 12, 2010
In a recent court decision, California's Proposition 8 initiative, which stated that marriage was to be between a man and a woman, has been struck down as unconstitutional. As reported by Fox News, the decision that overruled the voters of California was made by openly gay U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker. Walker, one of three openly gay federal judges in the country, said that the people's choice in California for traditional marriage was unconstitutional because "Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples." Of course, homosexuals around the country dance in glee at the new court decision amidst the flutter of rainbow flags, while appeals and other court battles over the gay marriage question prepare to begin.
Today, to oppose the destruction of traditional values is to violate the less-than-silent-but-always-growing edict of political correctness. So in the spirit of being overly fair to gay marriage proponents, let us revisit Judge Walker's rationale for overturning the country's long-standing tradition of marriage. Judge Walker states on the issue of marriage that opposite-sex couples must not be seen as superior to same-sex couples. The word "superior" is commonly defined as having a higher importance, above the average in merit, or being of higher quality, to name a few. So using Judge Walker's argument on couples, is traditional marriage of higher importance than gay marriage? From the standpoint of Californians, it most certainly is. In one of the most liberal states in the country the people rose up to defend traditional marriage in November 2008. The importance of this issue was so strong that the people took action to correct the decisions of their liberal courts within five months of the state Supreme Court's legalization of gay marriage. They did this legally through the voting process, and traditional marriage won because of its importance to the voters of California.
Is opposite-sex marriage higher in merit than same-sex marriage? Turning to our Judeo-Christian foundations, the answer is swift and absolute. Homosexuality is stated clearly within the Bible as an act of sin and an abomination to God (Leviticus 18:22). Furthermore, Romans 1:26-27 observes the shameful, unnatural indecency of the homosexual union. If merit, the claim to respect and praise, is still in question, 1 Corinthians 6:9 leaves no doubt that homosexuality is unrighteous, and those who engage in this activity will be rejected from the kingdom of heaven. Far beyond damning what Judge Walker wishes to lift up in gay marriage, the Bible, from its opening pages (Genesis 2:24) throughout (1 Corinthians 7:2-16, Ephesians 5:23-33), clearly states that marriage is between a man and a woman.
Lastly, is opposite-sex marriage of higher quality than same-sex marriage? Since Judge Walker has rejected the will of the people of California to decide this issue, and he undoubtedly would wish to avoid addressing the biblical ramifications of his court decision, we are left with the matter of the constitutionality of gay-ifying the institution of marriage in America. Unfortunately for Judge Walker's position, like a remote island filled with only gays or lesbians, in time you are left with nothing but the truth. The truth is that Judge Walker's constitutionality argument is brought around again to face the findings from points one and two.
Despite the attempts of liberal activist judges to recreate the Constitution as a morally relativistic reed that blows wildly in the direction of their personal agendas and deviant desires, the law remains steadfast as a document of the American people infused with our culturally engrained Judeo-Christian values from its inception. It is from these values that the Constitution is unique. It is from these values that we as a nation have been blessed so fully. Most importantly, it is from these values that the people fight today to maintain the fundamental viability of American culture through the observance of traditional marriage.
The court decision from U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker is far worse than an improper reading of the Constitution, it is an over attack on American culture, which the Constitution was meant to safeguard. This attack on traditional marriage is nothing short of more legislation from the court benches of Sodom and Gomorrah. So, while gays and lesbians exalt Judge Walker's court ruling in all its glitter-covered, spandexed glory, the judge's own words are revisited, and a conclusion can be extracted. Yes, Proposition 8 did "enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples" on the matter of marriage. It does so factually, reasonably, biblically, and constitutionally. Meanwhile, the majority of Americans have to decide either to take on a long, nasty battle to keep marriage traditional, or to stand silently as pillars of salt while America quickly becomes something radically other than America.
© Paul A. Ibbetson
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.)
