Proposition 8 was a stunning victory for the countless Californians who sought to defend moral values, conceptions of marriage and the traditional ordering of society.
Championing the value of the family and highlighting the dangerous consequences of legalizing homosexual marriage, these crusaders for a constitutional definition of legal union in the Golden State upset the popular conception of California as the leading state in the “gay rights” movement.
For decades, our state has served as a testing ground for social experimentation. We’ve always been at the forefront of legalizing what is often initially unpopular. Consider the case of anti-miscegenation, labor unionization, the extension of services to illegal aliens and even environmental regulation. Unsurprisingly, California has also been considered extremely liberal and Democratic. Historically, though, California has never been as loony as generally thought.
The success of Prop 8 was more than a resurgent conservatism. Instead, it reflects the rising tide of national opposition against the constructivist redesign of society. Marriage has an organic meaning, which neither the ballot box nor any panel of judges can alter. Nobody wants a redefined institution as important as marriage stuffed down their throat.
Opponents of marriage have now turned to the courts to overrule the rule of the people. Perry v. Schwarzenegger, a case being heard in U.S. District Court, challenges the constitutionality of the amendment, despite the fact it was ruled as permissible by the California Attorney General prior to its inclusion on the 2008 General Election ballot.
Both challengers to the initiative, and defenders, have completed presenting their cases. Closing arguments have been postponed while Judge Vaughn Walker considers the evidence presented thus far.
While it is expected that the case will eventually find its way to the Supreme Court, gay activists would only be disappointed at the ruling that body would likely dispense. The current composition of the highest judicial panel in the land is heavily conservative, and given the President’s outburst over campaign finance at the State of the Union, the Court is unlikely to offer any sort of help in fulfilling his campaign promises to the gay community.
But politics aside, the case is without merit. Laws concerning morality, even if reflective of an objective natural law, are majoritarian. America simply isn’t ready to accept the redefinition of marriage; forcing it through the Courts is quite inimicable. It’s a hard lesson, but the gay movement better learn it sooner rather than later.
8 Redux
Published: Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Updated: Wednesday, February 10, 2010
7 comments Log in to Comment
The US declaration of independence stated that “, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” The founders of this country thus acknowledged the existence of institutions that they do not have authority over. In no way does the US constitution give states or even groups of people to redefine anything endowed upon human beings by nature/creator etc…. for example, the Government cannot take back rights given to you via natural law. Thus it is stupid to think that a regulator can turn an unnatural relationship into an acceptable natural relationship. And truth is not regulated by will. We cannot call murder spanking and have it suddenly turn from murder into spanking. Likewise, one cannot call a relationship between two men a marriage, because, it’s not a marriage. Nature has already defined marriage.There are anomalies in nature, like deformed creatures, or people born with extra ordinary intelligence. These anomalies do not re-define the norm. Free will and intellect make human being exceptional in our planet. The free will when abused can turn into a disaster for human beings. This is one of those cases.Lust and sex cannot equate to marriage. And Love, true Love does not equate to self gratification in whatever form. So if two people of the same gender love each other, a true expression of that love would indeed require them to avoid sexually stimulate one another, because it’s not in their best interest to do so. True love thus can only be seen in its most pure form. Where one denies oneself for the benefit of the other and society at large.
Next I would like to address the shear hypocrisy of the Vista. I was reading the public safety report and there was a large section devoted to an incident involving homophobic remarks drawn on a door. The Vista went on to say that homophobia will not be tolerated at USD and yet here I am, two pages later, reading this. I am disgusted to imagine that somehow our school paper can be edited to the point where any real journalistic writing is excluded and something like this, which obviously was not well researched, can make it into the works.
I understand that this is an opinion section of the paper, which is why I will leave you right where I started. Your opinion is wrong. Gay rights activists will triumph and you will be crushed when it happens. That is not an opinion, that is a fact.
You must be logged in to comment on an article. Not already a member? Register now