“This case is about marriage and equality. The fundamental constitutional right to marry has been taken away from the plaintiffs and tens of thousands of similarly situated Californians.”
Solicitor Ted Olson
Opening Statement On Proposition 8 Trial
“Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite sex couples are superior to same-sex couples. Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.
Judge Vaughn Walker
Decision Striking Down Proposition 8
First, can we start here by observing that the California Court decision on Prop 8 teaches us, at the very least, that Natural Law theories will not get it done when living in a culture that does not presuppose Christianity? Natural law is a myth, and all the books and all the lectures given by David VanDrunen on the need to return to Natural Law will never convince courts, like the one in California that rejected Proposition 8, that Natural law teaches that marriage, is by definition, between one woman and one man.
Second, we would note the failure of Judge Walker’s statement in his first sentence in the block quote above is that he misses that the rational basis for singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license is the simple fact that it is literally not possible for two people of the same sex to get married. It is the same type of rational that is used in not giving a masseuse a license to be an electrician. We don’t give a masseuse a license to be a electrician because a masseuse does not qualify as a electrician. His problem in his second sentence is found in the reality that opposite sex couples are superior to same sex couples in terms of marriage because marriage is defined as being composed of two people of the opposite sex. One wonders if the judge would also object to the truth that opposite sex couples are superior to making babies then same sex couples? The problem with the third sentence will be picked up below.
As it pertains to Olson, Ted Olson, is, of course, quite wrong in his opening statement quoted above. The fundamental constitutional right to marry was never taken away from lesbians and homosexuals in California. What was taken away form the lesbians and homosexuals was the right to arbitrarily redefine the meaning of marriage.
Homosexuals and lesbians still retain the same legal right to marry just as straight people do. However, what has always been stripped from homosexuals and lesbians is the ability to redefine marriage as being something other than that which happens between two people of the opposite sex. Homosexuals and lesbians might find comfort in knowing that this ability to redefine marriage, that they desire, has also been stripped from those who wanted the right to marry their Sister or Mother or those who wanted to marry multiple people at the same time or those who wanted to marry 6 year old little boys or little girls, or those who wanted to marry their farm animals, or those who wanted to marry someone who didn’t want to marry them back. You see, anybody has the right to marry as long as it is marrying that they are doing. When Sam and Pete want to join, whatever it is that they are doing it is not and can not be marriage.
What we see here as all of this pertains to the “equal protection clause,” which is at the heart of this court decision in California, is that homosexuals and lesbians have always had equal protection under the law to marry as long as they were willing to conform to the objective definition of what marriage means; a definition that, at the very least, requires one person of each sex. The rules that give definitional meaning of what marriage is are rules that apply to everyone and so as everyone conforms to those rule everyone experiences equal protection before the law.
As a result of this court decision I do find myself a bit confused. Now that Sam and Pete can marry, I am wondering if Sam, as an Uncle, can marry Pete, his nephew. Do laws of consanguinity still apply in lesbian and homosexual marriages?
Look, folks, if a culture can not define the boundaries of marriage then marriage has no objective meaning. If marriage can mean anything then marriage means nothing. This observation brings us to a broader reality that is illuminated here and that is the common theme in our culture of the pursuit of erasing boundaries and/or distinctions, thus foisting a socialist sameness on everything.
In our country right now there is a move to erase the boundaries of our nation with the result that there will be no distinct American nation. Similarly, there has been for quite sometime the pursuit to erase the boundaries between men and women with the result that there will be no distinct maleness or femaleness. Again, there has been for quite some time the pursuit to erase the natural God given boundaries between people belonging to different people groups with the result that there will be no distinct ethnicities. And now there is this ruling where there is a erasure of the boundaries of marriage thus assuring that eventually there will be no distinction between marriage and non-marriage.
