Updated 04:40 pm.EST, Sat November 21, 2009

Opinion|Sat, May. 31 2008 11:15 PM EDT

When Judges Become Gods

By The Christian Post|

As Justice Baxter suggested, the “bare majority of this court, not satisfied with the pace of democratic change, … abruptly forestall[ed] that process and substitute[d], by judicial fiat, its own social policy views for those expressed by the People themselves.”

The justices also incorrectly tied in past discrimination against homosexuals with what it views as discrimination in the same-sex marriage debate. Certainly, the past and current discrimination against homosexuals is regrettable and incorrect – as homosexuals are as much God’s creation as any other sinner in this world is. However, barring them from marriage is not a matter of viewing them as people of “lesser stature” or “second-class citizens” but a matter of right and wrong.

Women are not regarded as “second-class citizens” if they are not permitted to enter a men’s restroom. Nor are young adults being discriminated for not being granted Senior Citizen passes or discounts.

In short, square pegs just can’t go into circle holes for a reason, not out of discrimination.

From these points alone, it’s clear to see that the California Supreme Court has erred and must rectify the situation. While it cannot take back what was said and done, it can reopen the path for the People to once again lead this land as they have from the very founding of this nation and, more importantly, give America the opportunity to remain rooted in God’s Law and the path He wishes to guide us on.

The California Supreme Court should delay finalizing its ruling to legalize same-sex “marriage,” as the attorneys general of 10 states are urging them to do.

It should stay its decision until the People of California can decide the issue with an initiative planned for the November ballot – not simply because pro-family groups want them to, but simply to respect the democratic process.

As President Abraham Lincoln had noted in his first inaugural address in 1861, “[i]f the policy of the government, upon vital questions affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court ... the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned the government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.”

Moreover, not only will the Court have taken away the authority of the People from the People, they will have placed themselves above God, who is The Author of The Law.

The California High Court should take a step back and know when their getting off the bench.

Pages: 12
Sort by: Newest | Oldest | Agree | Disagree
All comments on this page are subject to our Terms of Use and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Christian Post or its staff.
  • Wed Dec 10, 2008 5:34 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Daniel, based on the quote you sited I would hope your question is rhetorical.

  • Fri Nov 21, 2008 9:35 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "The court CANNOT overturn an amendment put into place by the people. That would be judicial usurpation and tyranny."

    OK...so...why exactly are they even willing to hear the cases?

  • Mon Nov 10, 2008 12:00 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Unbelievable ignorance of people found to be commenting on this. The court CANNOT overturn an amendment put into place by the people. That would be judicial usurpation and tyranny. This is why the whole problem got to the ponit it is now. The people already made a decision and the court disregarded it. You don't have any idea how close to civil war we are. Don't use the word "Gay" the proper word is "sodomy" okay, call a spade a spade. Look, it is obvious that the liberal left and this "sodomistic" marriage thing is way wrong.The people are not going to be forced to have there children taught at the age of 5 that it is okay for same sex to marry. Not going to happen. The liberals lie,cheat and steal for force there views and get what they say the have a "right" to. Before you people go running off at the mouth about your rights you need to get it straight. God was not created by heterosexuals but He created them. Regardless of what anyone things or tries to fool themselves into God did not create homosexuals. He created human beings that make choices, some good and some bad. The Bible is clear on this. We did not create the bible. You know, this is a waste. You people will not be satisfied until you destroy everything. This country was created for a religious people and is wholly inadequate for any other. Having Freedom in this counry does not mean we can do whatever we want. If you don't like the way things are then you can leave because if you keep pushing your views it will only lead to one thing. The people have spoken in California and it is Constitutional, arguing it won't change a single fact. Is it war your pushing for? Thats what will happen. Are you better off dead from war? Better count your blessings and let it go.

  • Fri Oct 31, 2008 4:08 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    This article, and the views expressed therein, is misguided and deceitful. As a matter of FACT, the fundamental right to marry in the US has been recognized as existing by the US Supreme Court in numerous cases, not all of which dealt with race. There have been cases involving the right of prison inmates to get married as well as one that involved the right of a man who was delinquent in his spousal and child support obligations to get married.

    As much as you all would like it to be this is not a matter for "the people" to decide without judicial oversight. Certainly the people of California can vote yes on Prop 8 but that doesn't mean that it won't get overturned by the court.

    As far as the rationale behind prohibiting gay marriage goes, there really aren't sufficient governmental interests to justify such a prohibition. In terms of federal law, the standard as applied to laws that specifically target gays is rational basis with bite scrutiny (because they are as of now only a quasi-suspect group rather than racial minorities who are suspect groups and entitled to the more stringent strict scrutiny). Under rational basis with bite a court will weigh the governmental interest against the individual interest thereby affected by the law. For governmental purposes, which by law may not be rooted in religious notions of what is sinful and evil, retaining the traditional notion of marriage is not more compelling than granting these equal rights to the gay community. Now, if there were an equally visible push from the Christian community to create a domestic partnership/civil union regime with identical rights and benefits to that of marriage then there might be a stronger case for there being some kind of governmental interest that is greater that the individual interests of the gays. If that were the case it would be merely battling about the use of the term "marriage" and it would be a much less meaningful debate. The unfortunate fact is that the "marriage" debate is really one about casting judgment about the propriety of the gay lifestyle and attempting to use the legislative process to inject "Christian sensibilities" into the governmental process where they don't belong. Religion belongs in our communities and personal lives not the legislative process.

  • Thu Oct 30, 2008 8:07 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    tpique1 - God said slavery was ok too but I don't see many Christians supportive of that.

  • Tue Aug 05, 2008 12:52 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Our "problem" in the west is that ultra-conservative Christians want to push their religion on many who believe otherwise, which goes against the concept of democracy. We have checks and balances in our government, and we most certainly do not vote on everything. Many times in the past, judges have decided to write a law which went against the will of the people, but it was to better the minority. You complain that gays have no morals, marriage produces monogamy and love.

  • Thu Jul 24, 2008 10:14 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    The Bible says homosexuality a sin, therefore it's a sin. Our problem in the West is that we think we're god and can dictate to Him what he believes. Because of our humanist thinking an indoctrination we attempt to set ourselves up higher than God's authority. If we don't like what the Bible says, we just simply exclude it. That is the greatest of sins. We in effect dictate to God from our own sinful perspective what is morally right and what is morally wrong. How dare we? did we die on a cross for Christ's sins or did He die for ours?

    If He is God and sinless that means His moral absolutes stand and ours are fallible and wrong. He is God, not us, so He dictates to US what the laws are that govern His creation. We are incapable. We are fallible.

    God said, therefore, homosexuality is a sin. If it's a sin, it can be repented of and changed. Not easily per se, but it CAN BE CHANGED. I think since God is God and I am not, He would know better than you or I what He's capable of.

  • Wed Jun 25, 2008 4:30 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "Since you think "choosing" one's sexual orientation is as easy as choosing a flavor of ice cream, do you think it would be just a possible for you to "choose" to be Gay?"

    Absolutely yes. The Bible says my heart is deceitful and desprately wicked. Billy Graham once said the only difference between him and Charles Manson was the grace of God. I know myself just well enough to know I could choose anything sinful.

  • Wed Jun 25, 2008 4:19 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Did I SAY it was easy??? No! Adictions are one of the absolute hardest things to overcome. One gay guy I knew told me he knew it was wrong and he would most-likely end up in hell but he was just having 'too much fun' (his term for addicted) to give it up.

    PhatDajuan-the reason I have some insight into the gay life-style is because I never 'sheltered' myself from gay people. I've worked with them, listened to them and even had some over for dinner with the family. Simiply put I got to know them. Jesus didn't hang out with the 'religious' as a rule. He hung out with everyone else! This is the Jesus I serve.

    However, your arguement does prove a point I've been trying to make for some time. Do gay people who 'argue' against me bring their religious baggage to the arguement or are they interested in discussing the subject with ME?

    You are a person just like everyone else. The Bible says that ALL have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. This means I am no better than you especially in the eyes of God.

  • Mon Jun 23, 2008 10:24 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    DEAR DANIEL PAUL:

    You write, "Until you PROVE being gay is not changeable there are NO parallels between civil rights and gay rights."

    So let me ask you: Since you think "choosing" one's sexual orientation is as easy as choosing a flavor of ice cream, do you think it would be just a possible for you to "choose" to be Gay?

    For someone who is ostensibly heterosexual, you seem to have some profound insignt into what it means to be Gay. I would be willing to bet that your did not make some conscious decision to be heterosexual, that it is something that just came naturally to you, and that you have never once been physically attracted to someone of the same sex.

    And yet you seem to know something about the hearts and minds of Gay people that we ourselves don't know? Sorry, but I really can't take your argument seriously.

  • Mon Jun 23, 2008 12:05 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "If the government still considers "marriage" to be a religious designation rather than a legal one, it has no business making any laws concerning that institution."

    It's not a matter of religion but of the majority who wrote and adds to the Constitution.

  • Mon Jun 23, 2008 12:01 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    " 'Activist' judges put an end to segregation, and no one can tell me that there are NO parallels between civil rights and gay rights."

    I cannot change what color I am. I cannot change what gender I am. I cannot change where I was born. I cannot change if I have a disability (although I can learn to overcome the effects of it) and religion is protected by the constitution.

    Until you PROVE being gay is not changeable there are NO parallels between civil rights and gay rights. There are quite a few people who have gone from gay to straight who are living proof it is a choice.

  • Thu Jun 19, 2008 4:06 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Furthermore, it is not the purpose of government, nor of the Constitution, to make things "sacred." Those who believe that marriage is sacred usually choose to be married in a religious ceremony. Gay couples may or may not be making a religious or moral statement; though most Christian denominations do no recognize such commitment, some do. Regardless, Gay couples simply wish to be legally bound to each other by law. We wish to have all the same privileges of any lifelong couple.

    If the government still considers "marriage" to be a religious designation rather than a legal one, it has no business making any laws concerning that institution. If, as confirmed by its actions, the government believes "marriage" to be a legal contract, it has no business denying that contract to any two people, no matter what their gender might be.

  • Thu Jun 19, 2008 4:05 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    It is not the courts' job to uphold the precise will of the majority of the people. That's what elections are for. The job of the courts is to uphold the Constitution, regardless of whether the necessary decisions fall in line with the will of the majority. It is up to the judges to determine, without bias from the rest of the population, what constitutes equality under the law, or equal protection. It seems more than obvious to me that to exclude Gays from the institution of marriage is a clear violation of any notion of "equality," and I have yet to see anyone dispute that on a rational level. Therefore, it is not "activism" on the part of judges to declare that Gay and Straight couples should be treated equally under the law, rather it is an example of judges performing their rightful duty.

  • Thu Jun 12, 2008 3:01 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Thanks, biggie.

  • Thu Jun 12, 2008 1:44 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Which countries allow gays to openly serve in the military? Australia, Canada, United Kingdom, Israel, Switzerland among many. In fact, of the 25 countries that participate militarily in NATO, 20 countries allow homosexuals to serve openly in the military.

    Of the 5 U.N. Permanent Security Members, two countries (France and UK) allow homosexuals to openly serve. Interestingly enough, countries which explicitly prohibit gays from openly serving in the military include Cuba, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Yemen and Venezuala.

    The US and Russia have Don't Ask Don;t Tell, but this policy will likely be eliminated in the U.S.
    In fact a Pew Research Public Opinion poll in 2006 showed that 60% of Americans favored allowing gays to openly serve in the military, 31% opposed.

    The Military Readiness Act introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives would enhance the readiness of the U.S. Military by replacing the Don't Ask Policy with a policy of nondiscrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

  • Tue Jun 10, 2008 1:48 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Ooops -- wrong site. Sorry....

  • Tue Jun 10, 2008 1:47 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    I must admit that #5 does seem to be true, which is curious -- and sort of pathetic.

  • Tue Jun 10, 2008 12:54 am Agree: 3   Disagree: 0

    Help me understand what the fuss is all about. How is it that two gay men who obviously love each other and want to share the rest of their lives together forming a family and raising children, how does that harm society? What are we defending? If marriage is sacred, then lets offer it to everyone who charishes monagomy and wish to love each other. America, wake up! Since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2003's historic Lawrence vs Texas case to make anti-gay sodomy laws unconstitutional, gays like it or not have earned the right to have a seat at the table. Homosexuality is no longer illegal in the U.S.A. It is a fact that must be dealt with, like it or not. Now, the rational human being who favors stability over chaos, will ask: what is the best way to integrate homosexuals into society? Afterall, we can't ban them. We can't make their behavior illegal. Don't you see its a losing battle to fight monogamy for homosexuals. Gay marriage is the right thing for America because it is what is best for society. Society doesn't benefit by banishing homosexuals to the shadows. Society benefits by welcoming gays and lesbians into the mainstream fabric of our culture. American has always been a melting pot. Whether it was the Irish, the Germans, the Polish, or Indians, Pakistanis, Nigerians, or now the Gays. We welcome. We integrate. And you know what, or society becomes stronger, and better for it. I urge all Christians to reconsider their views on Gay Marriage. Welcome stability of two people who love each other and want to commit the rest of their lives together. Welcome the fact that gay couples can raise children just as well as anyone else. And that a family built on love will serve society well. Finally, admit that Gays can in fact love each other. To state that homosexuality is all about sex, focuses incorrectly that these couples are unable to love, charish, and honor each other. Grow up America. These are adults who love each other. Its time that we put our money where our faith is, and support the right for their love to be counted as equal to anyone elses.

  • Mon Jun 09, 2008 3:40 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

    "Activist" judges put an end to segregation, and no one can tell me that there are NO parallels between civil rights and gay rights. Regardless of scripture (and some churches who will never bless gay marriage -- nor should they have to do so), the government of a secular country cannot limit people's rights. I may be in the minority here, but I think there is one parallel between the 1949 song from South Pacific and today's "homophobia" (for lack of a better word). The Broadway play received scrutiny for its commentary regarding relationships between different races and ethnic groups. In particular, "You’ve Got to Be Carefully Taught" was subject to widespread criticism, judged by some to be too controversial or downright inappropriate for the musical stage. Sung by the character Lieutenant Cable, the song is preceded by a lyric saying racism is "not born in you! It happens after you’re born..." Rodgers and Hammerstein risked the entire South Pacific venture in light of legislative challenges to its decency or supposed Communist agenda. While on a tour of the Southern United States, lawmakers in Georgia introduced a bill outlawing entertainment containing "an underlying philosophy inspired by Moscow." One legislator said that "a song justifying interracial marriage was implicitly a threat to the American way of life." Rodgers and Hammerstein defended their work strongly. James Michener, upon whose stories South Pacific was based, recalled, "The authors replied stubbornly that this number represented why they had wanted to do this play, and that even if it meant the failure of the production, it was going to stay in." (Some of this borrowed from wikipedia....)

  • Mon Jun 09, 2008 3:40 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    As long as judges make decisions that I agree with, I don't think of them as "activists," but as soon as they depart, well.....that's different. We all suffer with our "prejudices."

  • Sun Jun 08, 2008 8:37 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    hey VoiceOfReason, ask lincon, dread scott, or even general lee if they agree with what has happened in california

  • Mon Jun 02, 2008 7:50 pm Agree: 4   Disagree: 1

    Crossfire, what agenda is that? The judges who made the call were conservatives. Now, I've heard the Conservative Agenda is to stone the gays and force women to stay pregnant all the time, so I really don't see the connection. Unless you mean these are old-fashioned conservatives who don't think the government has any business in people's bedrooms. Those are a dying breed.

  • Mon Jun 02, 2008 11:08 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 3

    Yes, President Lincoln's first iaugural address is very appropriate. But not for the reason you give, ldfrmc, with all due respect. Simply put, the Supreme Court was wrong then and it's wrong now. And had they just done their job instead of promoting their agenda, there would have been different outcome for both cases.

  • Sun Jun 01, 2008 7:44 pm Agree: 5   Disagree: 4

    President Lincoln's first iaugural address is very appropriate. It was reacting to the Dred Scott case of 1854. Mr. Scott was a black slave, living in a free state. The Supreme Court decision Lincoln was decrying maintained all black people, living any where in America were slaves.

    California is now a free state, among 10 that give the same rights to gay couples, other married couples enjoy. We have a republic in America where democratic majorities cannot remove human rights from groups they do not understand, do not belong to, do not know about their lives.

    Thank God the California Supreme Court upholds the Constitution and not your bible.

  • Sun Jun 01, 2008 6:34 pm Agree: 5   Disagree: 1

    You're absolutely right! Just because the judges (appointed by Republicans and voted on by the people) and the representatives (also voted on by the people) of California have been trying to allow equality for all of that state's citizens is no reason to let them. You should definitely worry more that little Joey and Jenny will see their friends' parents and ask questions about them (as they're already seeing and doing) than worry that their friends can't get health insurance because Mom can't be listed as Mommy's beneficiary. Clearly the lack of divine wrath on Massachusetts and Canada, and the lack of the fall of civilization in both places, means that God would rather humans pretend to know His mind and take family rights away from children. (And just because a quarter of lesbian couples have children is no reason to think there's a lot of children involved, either.) Rise up you people of California and take down those uppity gays who want to spend money in your economy as they buy flowers for their weddings!

Please help us to monitor our message boards by flagging comments that are unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable.
Contact Us if you have any questions, comments, or concerns.
Comment on this story
ID Password

Don't have a Christian Post ID? Signing up is easy. Click Here

  • icon1
  • icon2
  • icon3
  • icon4
  • icon5
The Christian Post reserves the right to terminate the account of any User who violates our Terms of Use.
Advertisement
Advertisement
CP Shopping
  • Jewelry
  • Gifts
  • Health
  • DVD
  • Coins

Bracelets | Chains | Crosses | Earrings | Gemstone |

Featured contents & Giveaways
Joolwe :
Cross-pendant necklace
Zondervan

Struggling to succeed in the Nashville music scene, talented singer/songwriter Parker James finds the competition fierce even deadly. A young woman's murder, industry corruption, a

Featured Advertiser Links