When Judges Become Gods

For the past two weeks, gay "marriage" has been the talk of the town – mostly as a result of the California Supreme Court's infamous May 15 ruling, which has set the stage for homosexuals to tie the knot in June.

In a single day, four judges did that which they acknowledged they should not do – they redefined marriage because they believe marriage should be redefined.

And "We the People of the United States" – the centerpiece of the very Constitution that they have been called to uphold – are the ones that they have ignored.

"[W]e cannot find that retention of the traditional definition of marriage constitutes a compelling state interest," Chief Justice Ron George wrote in the majority opinion. "Accordingly, we conclude that to the extent the current California statutory provisions limit marriage to opposite-sex couples, these statutes are unconstitutional."

It should be absolutely obvious that, in making its decision, the California Supreme Court overstepped its authority. Even those on the bench have acknowledged this, including Justice Carol Corrigan, who said the majority "improperly infringes on the prerogative of the voters by overriding their decision."

"[T]hat change is for the people to adopt, not for judges to dictate," she wrote in a separate opinion.

Justice Marvin Baxter similarly noted how the majority, in reaching its decision, "violates the separation of powers, and thereby commits profound error."

"California statutes already recognize same-sex unions and grant them all the substantive legal rights this state can bestow," he wrote in a separate opinion. "If there is to be a further sea change in the social and legal understanding of marriage itself, that evolution should occur by similar democratic means. The majority forecloses this ordinary democratic process, and, in doing so, oversteps its authority."

The only thing more regrettable than the conclusion of four activist judges is the process through which they came to it.

First, as Justice Baxter noted, was their improper reference to the race cases such as Perez v. Sharp — which found that California's statutory provisions prohibiting interracial marriages were inconsistent with the fundamental constitutional right to marry.

"The civil rights cases banning racial discrimination were based on duly enacted amendments to the United States Constitution, proposed by Congress and ratified by the people through the states. To our nation's great shame, many individuals and governmental entities obdurately refused to follow these constitutional imperatives for nearly a century. By overturning Jim Crow and other segregation laws, the courts properly and courageously held the people accountable to their own constitutional mandates. Here the situation is quite different," Baxter noted.

Another egregious error committed by the majority was its assertion that retaining the traditional definition of marriage and affording same-sex couples only a separate and differently named family relationship WILL impose "appreciable harm" on same-sex couples and their children. Ignored, however, was the equally, if not greater, potential harm that such recognition will do to society as a whole. What makes the harm that homosexuals claim to experience greater than the harm that traditional family advocates claim children have and may suffer from a pro-gay culture that is more centered on sex than on strengthening the basic building block of society – the family?

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.

Free CP Newsletters

Join over 250,000 others to get the top stories curated daily, plus special offers!


Most Popular

More Articles