The End of Marriage

In California anyways.

In a ruling that has surprised no one given the fact that he telegraphed his intentions long before the trial began, Judge Walker has officially and single handedly taken it upon himself to subvert the democratic process and the will of the people, and re-made a fundamental human institution in accordance with his own will.

No longer, “the union of husband and wife in heart, body and mind”, it is now any two people who want to hang together for awhile and have the state give them the stamp of approval, or as the judge put it, merely “a union of equals”.

 For those who don’t live in California, be thankful for now – and pray that the inevitable ruling in the Supreme Court will preserve the democratic process. Barring that, it is obvious a constitutional amendment is in order.  One may be in order anyway. It will definitely be an issue (well another issue) this November.

What God has joined together, man has corrupted. It’s a very sad day for California, for our nation, for humanity.

Advertisements

8 Responses to The End of Marriage

  1. trog69 says:

    Oops, sorry; I got schadenfreude on your hyperbole. Hahahahaha!

    Oh happy daze are here again!

  2. Bettawrekonize says:

    I live in California. I suppose the thing that concerns me the most is when people have children and then re – marry. It splits families apart and doesn’t necessarily foster a good environment for young children, who should grow up with both parents raising their children together.

    Then again, if two parents want to get a divorce and re – marry chances are that there really is no set of laws that could do much to ensure the best future for their children. These people had issues regardless and I just don’t see the government fixing anything no matter what set of laws it employs.

    To some degree the problem runs deeper than any governments ability to fix it via marriage laws. Much of it also has to do with the fact that, as a nation, we are moving away from God. No set of marriage laws can really fix that.

    “and pray that the inevitable ruling in the Supreme Court will preserve the democratic process. ”

    I don’t even know if the majority of people in this country agree with you anymore. Unfortunately it may not be the case. It’s hard to tell. While I do believe in democracy I also find it disturbing that our democracy is moving away from God. and the fact of the matter is that I really don’t see this getting any better in the future either, as far as I can tell it will only get worse. Hopefully I’m wrong though. However, God’s message will continue to spread to new audiences in other countries as well. Usually that’s how it works.

  3. Justin says:

    Well, the homosexual crowd has done a good job of selling this as an “equal rights” issue when really it’s an expansion of rights. Prior to this ruling, everyone had the equal right to marry someone of the opposite sex. So this is not bringing one group of people “up to” the equal footing as the rest of the country, it is expanding rights.

    Next, I would expect to see polygamy legalized, then from there, who knows.

  4. Nate says:

    That’s why this will be awful hard for them to win at the supreme court. The court would be likely to side with the gay crowd if this were an equality issue. Its not. Its a special privilege issue and the court is very cautious about creating new rights.

  5. jackhudson says:

    Betta,
    I agree no set of laws can fix marriage in our country. In fact one of the advantages gay marriage advocates had was they were essentially able to say, “The institution is on life support; what difference if we end its miserable life all together?” Nonetheless, we should always oppose steps closer to the abyss if only because it is based on truth and ultimately love.

    One thing I find interesting though is the same forces that now tell us gay marriage will do nothing to harm marriage are the same forces in the recent past that told us fidelity in marriage wasn’t all that important, that easier divorces would be good for our society, and that uncoupling procreation from marriage and sex would only benefit us. We know now in hindsight of some three to four decades that they couldn’t have been more wrong – these changes have devastated families, communities, and our social fabric. There is no reason to trust that what they say about the goodness of gay marriage, and every reason to believe they are antagonistic to the idea of marriage all together.

    I don’t know if the majority of people in America agree with me now; I do know a majority of voters in California voted against gay marriage, and a single gay judge and his mock trial is subverting the will of the people in that state. That shouldn’t be.

  6. jackhudson says:

    Nate,

    You are right, the legal basis of the decision is weak – however it may actually be very hard to get this case appealed. And sadly, even at the level of the Supreme Court, because of the politicization of the Court the ruling will come down to the inclination of single judge – Anthony Kennedy.

  7. jackhudson says:

    Justin,

    If this ruling stands, it does gut any legal basis for opposing polygamy, or having the state recognize any other arrangement two people make and call it a marriage. Considering the increasing influence of those immigrating from Islamic cultures, where polygamy is acceptable, we may very well see those third world arrangements become widespread in our country.

  8. Bettawrekonize says:

    “Nonetheless, we should always oppose steps closer to the abyss if only because it is based on truth and ultimately love. ”

    I agree.

    “I don’t know if the majority of people in America agree with me now; I do know a majority of voters in California voted against gay marriage”

    Which is good, and if the majority of voters in Cali voted this way you’re probably right in your assertion that it does say a lot being that Cali is considered a very liberal state. Maybe there is hope after all, though I do find it obnoxious that a small minority can have such huge impact against the will of the majority, but what else is new. Pretty much everywhere you look in politics it’s always a small minority having a disproportionally unfair influence on a large majority (though, in other cases, it’s usually the rich who have a disproportionally unfair influence over the rest but that’s mostly because they have a disproportional amount of money to buy politicians).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: