Judicial Activism Gone Wild: California Legalizes Gay Marriage and Attacks Family Values
May 16th, 2008 | by admin |Radical, liberal, progressive judges have overruled the will of the people in California. The Supreme Court of California has ruled that a law, which defines marriage as between one man and one woman, is unconstitutional. The law was voted on by the citizens of the state back in 2000. This judicial activism is a direct attack on American morality and traditional family values. This is outrageous, offensive, and the good people of California have been dealt a terrible blow.
There are two huge problems with what happened in California. First, there is the judicial activism. Second, there is the attack on traditional Judeo-Christian values which have influenced our nation from it’s inception. Let me address each individually.
The moral issue of homosexuality aside, this decision by the California Supreme Court goes above and beyond the proper role of government. The people of California voted to protect traditional marriage. How can four activist judges decide that their will is more important than the will of millions of Californians? The judicial branch of government does not exist to legislate from the bench (that’s why we have a legislative branch) but that is exactly what they have done in this case!
Liberal progressives will be filled with joy over this news because they believe it is the role of the government to create special rights. Any American with half a brain will know that this is absolutely false. All we have to do is look at the words of our founding fathers where it is clearly stated that rights are endowed by our Creator, not by government. In our constitution there is no specified right to marriage. Marriage comes from the Judeo-Christian values which have always influenced our nation. In an effort to encourage these values (which is the unique role of our government) marriage was licensed (and thus endorsed) by the state for raising children and encouraging family values. Let me be clear, the government never created a right to marriage, but has rewarded it through various incentives. Gay marriage would be in direct conflict with the Judeo-Christian values that inspired state licensed marriage to begin with.
The moral problem with legalizing homosexual marriage is that it attacks the bedrock of American society, the family. Both Judeo-Christian values and nature itself give us all the evidence we need that a child is best served by growing up in a home with a mother and a father. If that doesn’t convince you, just add modern day family research into the mix for further confirmation. Legalizing homosexual marriage is an attack on young impressionable children. It’s also an endorsement of a behavior that most Americans find abnormal and deviant.
The biggest lie put forth by proponents of legalized gay marriage is that it’s all about getting the financial benefits that come with marriage. California, for instance, already had legalized civil unions which gave homosexual couples all of the benefits entitled to married heterosexual couples. The financial aspect is part of the equation, but the main reason that proponents want gay marriage is so that all Americans are forced to recognize their deviant sexual behavior as normal. I believe that deep down homosexuals want someone to tell them it’s OK for them to act in this manner because they know it isn’t right. They need justification. I’ve already outlined why I believe homosexual behavior does not deserve special treatment and why it’s none of my business what you do personally (so long as you don’t seek special treatment or infringe on the rights of others).
So what will this ruling do? This is just another step in the liberal progressive handbook aimed at forcing traditional Americans to accept a sexual behavior they find immoral. Business owners will be forced to provide benefits to same sex partners even if they find this behavior reprehensible and a poor reflection of character. What about the church? Will they be forced to accept homosexuality? Will they be forced to marry homosexuals? Could they lose their tax-free status? What’s next? Will this blog be considered “hate speech” and will I be arrested?
The time is now to rise up and fight these evil activist forces and all of America needs to realize this as we head into the general election. If the predictions about Democrats taking more seats away from the Republicans comes true, expect more of these attacks on our nation’s values as liberal activist judges are appointed.
So much focus has been made on the presidential election, and it certainly warrants our attention, but just as important are the various Congressional races around the country. It’s time to take America back and it will only happen if Americans step forward and stand in the gap.
We all lead busy lives. We have our careers, we have families to take care of, and we are involved in things like our church and community. That being said, have you considered what you can do to help conservative politicians win this fall? Sometimes it’s monetary help. Other times it’s helping to get the word out door to door or putting up lawn signs. Maybe it’s volunteering at campaign events, or perhaps it’s just telling your friends and family members about your concerns and sharing who you’ll be voting for this election. We can all play our part in this culture war, but if you don’t stand up and fight, who will?




By Chris Sumpter on May 16, 2008
I agree with you that judges shouldn’t legislate from the bench. But I don’t think they should just rubber-stamp the will of the people. That’s the “check and balance” that the judiciary provides. They are to be the restraining force to uphold the constitution and the laws of the land, DESPITE public opinion, not ACCORDING to it.
By Andy Barnett on May 16, 2008
Point well taken, but my point is that the judges in this case created a right which is not in the constitution. I’m not sure government should be doing that period (at least not flippantly). Certainly not the judicial branch.
The will of the people can still be heard by means of a constitutional amendment, which will likely be on the ballot this November.
This is still a clear example of a radical agenda based on views held by the few rather than the many.
By Chuck on May 17, 2008
You realize, of course, that six of the seven judges on the California Supreme Court are Republican. Liberal and progressive, indeed.
I think you engage in some serious slippery slope fallacies here. Churches will not be compelled to accept gay marriage or perform gay marriage ceremonies. There is legal precedent that would protect against that.
I’ll only address the point about Judeo-Christian values by pointing out that the U.S. was founded on principles of freedom of religion, and Jefferson himself clearly invoked religions such as Islam and Hinduism that were worthy of protection. The judges were merely protecting the rights of a minority group, as they should have.
By Andy Barnett on May 17, 2008
Chuck,
It has become all too clear that party affiliation does not determine whether one is a liberal or progressive. So your point about the judges being appointed by Republicans is moot.
It is indeed a slippery slope we put ourselves on when we offer special rights for individuals’ behaviors. That opens up the door for all sorts of wacky lawsuits. Hate speech laws to silence the church on the issue of sexual behavior is very real and very scary.
The U.S. is indeed a country with the freedom of religion, but to deny the fact that the government itself was founded on Judeo-Christian principles is naive.
One of the great principles of Judeo-Christian faith is freedom. I would argue that we are indeed a Christian nation and because of this people are free to make their own personal decisions when it comes to their religion.
The government’s role is to encourage Judeo-Christian values, not to act with the authority of the church such as in a theocracy.
By Chuck on May 17, 2008
If the US is a Christian nation, then maybe you should go ahead and kick some of us out.
By Andy Barnett on May 17, 2008
Chuck, you obviously didn’t read my entire response. It is because the nation is founded on Christianity as a Democracy that you are able to choose whatever religion floats your boat, so long as it does not violate the rights of others.
You are more than welcome to leave of your own free will.