9th Circuit Declares California’s Proposition 8 Unconstitutional
By Steven Osborne | Tuesday, February 7th, 2012 | Catch-All, Culture, PolicyThe 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled today that the referendum passed by California voters in 2008 that restored the definition of marriage in that state to being between one man and one woman is unconstitutional.
The grounds for this split decision was the panel’s reading of the 14th Amendment, contending that the voter’s decision in California violated the equal protection clause of the Constitution. This is the newest instance of many where the equal protection clause has been used for purposes of social engineering.
There is a very real danger in such social restructuring being handed down by judicial fiat. The people of California under their Constitution have the ability to pass such a referendum and the court is trampling on the sovereignty of the people of California.
This judicial panel likewise used the argument, first that “marriage” is merely a subjective term that society gives to certain relationships and secondly that anyone has a “right” to use the term to describe their relationship. Following this logic to its natural conclusion creates a very slippery slope and could present a legal nightmare.
Let’s face it, if marriage is a “right” could it not also be an entitlement? What if somebody cannot or will not find a spouse? Should the government go fetch one?
This decision will also have the potential to negatively impact religious institutions and individuals who recognize marriage as a covenant rooted in universal laws over which the government has no authority. The state’s interest in marriage as a key component in society will also be affected in various negative ways, as significant social engineering will have to take place in order for homosexual marriages to achieve the full status that the LGBT activists wish for it to achieve.
With over half of all States, including Virginia, having passed amendments to protect marriage, this issue will be debated for some time to come.
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
Steven Osborne is a grassroots conservative activist from Central Virginia. He is currently furthering his education at Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia. In addition to writing for Bearing Drift he is also a columnist for the Christian Law Journal.
Comments
8 Responses to "9th Circuit Declares California’s Proposition 8 Unconstitutional"
There was a time not too long ago, Steven, when whites and blacks (“Negros”) could not get married. Just wondering where you stand on that?
Apples and oranges, MD
Race is a state of being and does not guarantee a particular behavior, homosexuality defines a particular behavior. Very different situations.
If two people of different races want to get married then that is fine as long as one is a man and one is a woman.
The attempts to segregate the races represented social engineering, much like the current LGBT agenda, which also is attempting social engineering.
Well, that is interesting, Steven. The miscegenation laws that banned interracial marriages were all struck down by the same interpretation of the 14th Amendment as applied by the 9th Circuit Court today–equal protection under the law. Was that also “social engineering” in your opinion, rather than the original laws being social engineering?
Let us review. When the Federal courts applied the 14th Amendment to strike down miscegenation laws, they were reversing social engineering. When the Federal courts apply the 14th Amendment to strike down anti-gay laws, they are engaging in social engineering. Did I get that right?
But, let us review the Ultimate Law, The Bible. Does the Bible proscribe homosexual unions? Of course it does. But, according to the Old Testament, interracial marriage is also an abomination.
Genesis 28:1: “And Isaac called Jacob, and blessed him, and charged him, and said unto him, Thou shalt not take a wife of the daughters of Canaan.”
Leviticus 19:19: “Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind …”
Deuteronomy 7:2-3: “And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them: Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son.”
And the New Testament takes these Biblical admonishments one step further. It prohibits Christians from marrying non-Christians, or “unbelievers.”
2 Corinthians 6:14: “Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?”
Gosh, and here I thought that Liberty University taught Bible studies.
@ MD
The Jews were told not to intermarry with the Canaanites on the grounds of religion. Likewise, Christianity which flows from Judaism, also prohibits intermarriage on the basis of religion.
Are you suggesting that religion = race? Come on now, MD surely you know better than that.
Re: 14th Amendment
It really is quite simple. In the case involving interracial marriage, the court used the 14th Amendment to overturn social engineering. In this recent decision, the majority of this judicial panel used the 14th Amendment to implement social engineering which they do not have the authority to do.
There is a difference between allowing both blacks and whites to have access to the institution of marriage as it already exists, and attempting by judicial fiat to change the institution altogether.
Individual religious institutions should be able to decide if a homosexual or heterosexual couple can marry. I’m assuming you support a church’s “right” not to provide birth control to its employees, so shouldn’t a church have a “right” to allow or disallow the sanctity of marriage, whether it be heterosexuals or homosexuals getting married. At least you’d be consistent.
And when one state recognized homosexual marriages, the other states should have to recognize that marriage.
Steven,
Russ did a pretty good job breaking down you’re argument but…
I’m confused at to what behavior you’re talking about. Both gays and straights have sex. Sex is the verb, it is the behavior, gay and straight simply signify with whom they’re having sex.
@ Stephen,
What is the difference? Previously conservatives didn’t like black people having equal rights and now conservatives don’t like gay people to have the same rights. There is no difference. Blacks, whites, gays, straights all have sex, it’s who they are having sex with that bothers you for some reason. You don’t like gay people because they have sex with people of the same sex and you don’t want them getting married for whatever reason.
Steven,
You continue to crack me up. So, a Christian marrying a non-Christian is just as bad as same-sex marriage?
As for your logic gymnastics on the 14th Amendment, doesn’t all that mental contortion make your head hurt? I sure hope that it isn’t law that you are studying at Liberty.
Haven’t you figured out yet that I’m jerking your chain because it is so easy to do?
@MD
Lol…no chain being jerked here…just calmly responding to inaccurate statements
No, inter-religious marriages are not the same as homosexual marriages for obvious reasons.
Leave your response
The comments section is for meaningful discussion. Readers are reminded to post comments that are germane to the article and write in a common language that steers clear of personal attacks and/or vulgarities.
Please take a moment to review our comment policy.