February 2, 2010

Today, we find out whether Punxsutawney Phil sees his shadow when he is pulled from his burrowed layer beneath the earth or not. As the ole tale goes, if he fails to see his shadow he will leave his burrow signifying that winter will soon end.  If, on the other hand, he sees his shadow he will retreat underground to stay warm and that is interpreted to mean we have at least six more weeks of cold inter weather ahead.

To the gay community, getting the Proposition 8 Amendment into Federal Court for a review means its Groundhog Day. Getting into the hands of a very liberal judge, as they did in this case, and putting the Christian Right on trial which they have successfully done, means the Groundhog is not seeing his shadow! To the gay community that means their "winter" is about over.

At issue is California's Proposition 8, in which voters in 2008 voted to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

The trial before U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker in San Francisco will determine whether California was within its rights in 2008 to pass Prop 8 and prohibit "gay marriage." The case could end up before the U.S. Supreme Court and decide the constitutionality of laws and constitutional amendments banning "gay marriage" not only in California but also in every other state.

Given that this is now a federal case, then no matter who wins or loses it will be appealed to the (liberal) Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals wherein it is certain that Gay Rights activists will win, and then to the US Supreme Court.  In the end, it's not just California's Prop 8 that's at issue, but it will be the definition of marriage in all fifty states. 

In other words, what the pro-gay marriage crowd is looking for is the gay marriage equivalent of Roe vs. Wade, where the Supreme Court steps in and sweeps aside citizen passed laws all across the country and short circuits the political process all together.

From the Baptist Press [1]:

The case, Perry v. Schwarzenegger, was filed on behalf of two homosexual couples in May by Ted Olson and David Boies, the two attorneys who reached national prominence in 2000 when they represented George W. Bush and Al Gore, respectively, in Bush v. Gore. They are now teammates, hoping to see their case overturn traditional marriage laws in the same way that, say, Roe v. Wade reversed pro-life laws. Most likely, the case eventually will end up before the U.S. Supreme Court.

"This is the first serious case where the federal constitution has been invoked as the basis for a right to same-sex marriage," Jordan Lorence, senior counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund and one of the attorneys involved in defending Prop 8, told Baptist Press. "All of the other cases that we've heard about over the years -- Massachusetts and Connecticut -- those were all suits under their respective state constitutions. ... [This case] potentially could be used to challenge all the state marriage amendments, all the state laws that define marriage as a man and woman, as well as the federal Defense of Marriage Act."

Of course, one of their claims is that a ban on same sex marriage somehow violates "equal protection" under the Constitution.  The problem with that is that everyone has the same right to marry if they wish; they are free to marry someone of the opposite sex.

Aside from the known (and unknown) problems with redefining a fundamental societal institution, not the least of which is starting down the slippery slope that leads to polygamous marriage, etc., there is the problem of what these people are really after.  It's not just the "right" to marry someone of the same sex, it's the "right" to have you (and the government) put a societal stamp of approval on their lifestyle.  To demand that you as and individual and/or business owner give them special treatment based on their behavior.

They want to take away the rights of you as a Christian, or your church, or your Christian business, to avoid violating your religious principles.  They would demand that private Christian schools, churches or businesses be held in violation of civil rights laws if they refuse to hire homosexuals and/or give marriage benefits to their "partner".

No matter how they choose to put it, what they're really demanding is not "equal rights", it's special treatment based on personal behavior.  It has nothing to do with race, sex or country of origin.  It's about special rights for their "lifestyle".  And giving special rights to one group based on their behavior will infringe on the rights of those whose religious convictions reject that behavior.  To say nothing of opening the door to other groups wanting other behavior based rights., (use your imagination).

The problem is, when you continue to redefine an exclusive institution such as marriage to the point that you remove its exclusive attributes, you no longer have an institution.

If marriage can mean anything, then it means nothing.