By L.A. Williams, Correspondent
Christian Action League
SAN FRANCISCO — A federal judge’s ruling on Wednesday that strikes down California’s ban on gay marriage is not only a slap in the face to some 7 million voters there, but could ultimately result in the reversal of constitutional amendments and statutes in 45 states that define marriage as between one man and one woman.
“North Carolinians already had reason to be concerned because we’re the only state in the Southeast without a marriage protection amendment in our Constitution,” said the Rev. Mark Creech, executive director of the Christian Action League. “This judicial activism shows that even a change to the state Constitution is not fail-safe.”
“This ruling is about much more than marriage. It is ultimately about whether America will remain a republic or an oligarchy ruled by an ideological elite,” he added. “Voters in California have voted twice to define marriage as between one man and one woman, but the courts have said the vote of the people is irrelevant.”
Judge Vaughan Walker’s ruling will be appealed to the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which is considered one of the nation’s most liberal legal venues. If it upholds his decision, the case would go to the Supreme Court. And if upheld there, gay marriage would be law in every state in the union, regardless of state statutes or state constitutional amendments — in effect the Roe v. Wade of homosexual marriage.
“But the fight is not over yet,” Creech said.
Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, said the ruling should lead to a movement to pass a marriage amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
“Our forefathers have given us a method to express our ultimate will,” Land told Baptist Press. “… If the Supreme Court fails to uphold the will of the people of California — if we are going to have our form of government altered by judicial fiat — then the only alternative left to us is to pass a constitutional amendment defining marriage as being between one man and one woman.
“Many senators who voted against the federal marriage amendment the last time it came up publicly said that if a federal court interfered with a state’s right to determine this issue, they would then be willing to vote for a federal marriage amendment. Ladies and gentlemen, prepare to vote.”
In every state where voters have been given the chance to affirm their belief in traditional marriage, they have done so. California is one of the 29 states that defined marriage in their state constitutions. Another 16, including North Carolina, do so in their state statutes. Despite intense lobbying efforts over the past six years, bills that would allow Tar Heel voters to approve a Defense of Marriage amendment to the N.C. Constitution have never been allowed a hearing in the General Assembly. Polls show that 73 percent to 76 percent of North Carolinians support such a protection for marriage.
The California ruling means its more important than ever for Christians to take a Biblical stand on the issue.
“This ruling on Proposition 8 is a clarion call for genuine followers of Christ to shed their moral laryngitis. Homosexual marriage threatens the public’s health, the welfare of children and religious liberty,” the Rev. Creech said. “I agree with Mathew Staver (chairman of Liberty Counsel) who wrote: ‘If we prefer not to get involved to stop same-sex unions from gobbling up the beautiful lives of those who are created in God’s image, then we do not understand, nor have we begun to experience, the depths of Christ’s love.”
Apologist Frank Turek points out the faulty reasoning of those, like Judge Walker, who claim that homosexual marriage is an “equal rights” issue.
“We’re all playing by the same rules — we all have the same right to marry any non-related adult of the opposite sex. Those rules do not deny anyone ‘equal protection of the laws,’ because the qualifications to enter a marriage apply equally to everyone — every adult person has the same right to marry,” Turek has written. “Homosexuals want the court to believe that because of their sexual desires they are a special class of persons that is being discriminated against.”
Turek points out that if that is the case, then those who want to marry many women (polygamy), or close relatives (incest), etc., would all be able to claim they don’t have “equal rights” because our marriage laws don’t indulge their specific desires.
“We’re not discriminating against anyone with our current marriage laws. Like most laws, we’re only discriminating for or against behavior that is good or bad for our country,” he added.
In his ruling Walker said Proposition 8 “does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite sex couples are superior to same-sex couples.”
“Indeed it does and should. But we also ban polygamous marriages, incestuous marriages and place age restrictions on marriage,” said the Rev. Creech. “Such restrictions do nothing to violate equal protection.”
Walker’s ruling, if upheld, will strike a blow to religious liberty as well as the rights of parents, experts warn.
“Whenever you have same-sex marriage or same-sex civil unions, you end up having a clash between the same-sex agenda and freedom of religion. The two are not compatible, because the same-sex agenda seeks to force by law acceptance of its view, and that will inevitably collide with Christian values,” Staver told Baptist Press early last year. “People really need to wake up, because this, I think, is the greatest threat to our liberty that we face today — bar none.”
