Scenes of Sodom in California
By a 4-3 decision, the highest court in California has ruled that state laws which limit marriage to one man for one woman are unconstitutional. In a case that originated with the city of San Francisco (no surprise there) and numerous gay and lesbian couples, as well as various “gay rights” advocacy groups, the court concluded that the right to marry is “a fundamental constitutional right,” and therefore must be extended to same-sex couples. Shame, shame. Yet another example of outrageous judicial activism, legislating from the bench in defiance of all of America’s legal history, this far-reaching decision will undoubtedly send moral shock waves across American culture, and escalate the level of homosexual activism. This judicial audacity flies directly in the face of the over one million California voters whose signatures are expected to enable Californians to decide this November whether to protect the biblical definition of marriage with a constitutional amendment.
For a human court to undermine the very foundations of civilization, by redefining marriage as created and established by the Creator Himself, is unconscionable. The court even admitted that throughout California history, “the statutory designation of marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman has remained unchanged” (California State..., 2008, p. 25). But, of course, constitutional history means nothing to justices who have abandoned their own constitutional responsibility in order to impose their own agenda. Dissenting Justice Baxter rightfully referred to such shenanigans as “legal jujitsu”:
I cannot join this exercise in legal jujitsu, by which the Legislature’s own weight is used against it to create a constitutional right from whole cloth, defeat the People’s will, and invalidate a statute otherwise immune from legislative interference. Though the majority insists otherwise, its pronouncement seriously oversteps the judicial power (p. 7, emp. added).
The court had the unmitigated gall to compare race and gender to “sexual orientation” (a veiled allusion to deviant sexual appetites—not genetic makeup as is the case with ethnicity and gender):
Furthermore, in contrast to earlier times, our state now recognizes that an individual’s capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual’s sexual orientation, and, more generally, that an individual’s sexual orientation—like a person’s race or gender—does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights. We therefore conclude that in view of the substance and significance of the fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship, the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-couples (California State..., p. 7, emp. added).
Such ridiculous reasoning logically implies that it is inevitably just a matter of time before the courts legalize and dignify every other sexual perversion as “marriage”—from polygamy and bisexuality, to pedophilia and bestiality. After all, by the same twisted “reasoning,” the “right to marry” would extend to such persons as well. If a man has a “constitutional right” to marry another man, then a man has the same right to marry his dog. Dissenting Justice Baxter put the entire matter in perspective:
[T]here is no fundamental constitutional right to a same-sex legal union that equates in every respect with marriage.... But a bare majority of this court, not satisfied with the pace of democratic change, now abruptly forestalls that process and substitutes, by judicial fiat, its own social policy views for those expressed by the People themselves (p. 4, emp. added).
In the 1885 Utah Territory case of Murphy v. Ramsey, the United States Supreme Court reaffirmed what America has always believed and practiced:
For certainly no legislation can be supposed more wholesome and necessary in the founding of a free, self-governing commonwealth, fit to take rank as one of the coordinate States of the Union, than that which seeks to establish it on the basis of the idea of the family, as consisting in and springing from the union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony; the sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization; the best guaranty of that reverent morality which is the source of all beneficent progress in social and political improvement (1885, emp. added).
Such thinking was standard and typical in America from the very beginning until the turbulent 1960s. Americans knew that the very foundation of civilization depended on the home as God defined it in Genesis 1 and 2. They knew that to tamper with that prescription would mean the unraveling of society. Americans had better wake up and realize the deadly threat that sexual anarchy poses to the survival of the Republic. “Unless the Lord builds the house, they labor in vain who build it” (Psalm 127:1).
California State Supreme Court, Opinion No. S147999, FindLaw, [On-line], URL: http://fl1.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/glrts/inremrg51508opn.pdf.
Murphy v. Ramsey (1885), 114 U.S. 15; 5 S. Ct. 747; 29 L. Ed. 47; 1885 U.S. LEXIS 1732.