This week was a tough one for our country. While I couldn’t be prouder of my home state, Missouri, passing Proposition C. This will help prevent the federal government from forcing Missourians to buy a product they may not want. While this is a step in the right direction; unfortunately, a federal judge overturned California’s Proposition 8. This federal judge stepped in and overruled over 7 million Californians who believed marriage is between ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN. What a crazy concept? The main basis for the ruling was there is no logical basis to exclude gays and lesbians from being wed. Here’s what the judge wrote,
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.
So, basically there’s no basis to assume marriage should be only between a man and woman? If you think so then you are nothing more than a bigot, homophobe. The “justice” went on to essentially claim that backers of Prop 8 were all being discriminatory. Walker asserted the moral basis for the proposition was flawed. He could not uphold a ban on gay marriage based morality. I challenge anyone to give me a single example of a law not based in some form of morality. Since gay marriages are no different than straight marriages there is no other explanation for the backers’ morality than discrimination and a feeling of superiority, according to the judge. Beyond the fact this ruling accuses a majority of Californians of being bigots (side note: What difference does a person’s reason to vote have to do with Constitutionality or the basis of the law on Constitutionality for that matter?), what place does this leave marriage in? If there is no basis to discriminate what defines marriage, since one man and one woman is no longer viable, what legal basis is there to prevent marriage to any group? I know the left always calls this argument outrageous, but someone please explain how to defend marriage from any other assaults. It was just declared open by a federal judge. There’s nothing standing in the way of it being opened to any other group either. After all, those attempts are probably based on bigoted opinions that marriage is between two people. So please someone, tell me how we can now properly define marriage.
Finally, what ever happened to elections have consequences? That’s all we’ve been told by the Left. We’re passing healthcare and you can’t stop it, elections have consequences. We’re nominating a justice to the Supreme Court with no experience, elections have consequences. In this case, more than 52% of CALIFORNIANS passed this bill. California, one of the most liberal states and it still passed this law! Elections have consequences. Stop over turning a majority, with phony “Constitutional” arguments. Leave marriage alone, it’s worked since creation. Elections have consequences.
From Rational Voice: Here is some good commentary on this issue. In it, the author begs the question, if we allow gay marriage, what is preventing us from going one step further and legalizing polygamy? It’s essentially the same. A man may love a man or a woman another woman, but what if a man loves two women? Why doesn’t he have the right to marry those he loves? If we want to be fair don’t we have to allow them to get married as well?