Proposition 8 is unconstitutional is it?

I am not for mob rule, but it should be noted that the people of california have spoken, and they said homosexual “marriage” should be banned! However, unless you’ve been living under a rock (has anyone noticed I use that phrase a lot on my blog?), you probably already know that Judge Vaughn Walker has struck down proposition 8.

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

See, here is the problem. We, the United States of America have ousted the Bible from carrying any authority, certainly any moral authority. But now what do we base our morals on? Without the law of God there is no law, there is no morality, there is no order. Morality becomes something less then an objective standard, something that is at our whim. Morality becomes defined by us and so we are now redefining it. You see the real issue here is not a question of rights. No one has the “right” to deny anyone marriage. No, at stake here is the definition of marriage, and who defines it. Since God’s law has been thrown out, we are now looking to man’s laws to define what a marriage is, and man is now attempting to say that marriage can exist between any two people regardless of gender.

Let me take an extreme example, lets say a man (or a woman) wanted to marry a computer. Would they take this to court because they couldn’t get a marriage license? Marriage is a fundamental right, so shouldn’t a person be allowed to marry their computer?

It’s a fairly silly notion, but it illustrates my point, and that is this; no one is denying these homosexual couples the right to marry. The problem is that marriage has not been defined as being between two members of the same sex… until now. So these people have been free to marry… any consenting member of the opposite sex. Marriage requires two people of opposite sexes.

Let me illustrate further, suppose a person wanted to marry their mother. For the sake of illustration, lay aside for a moment the issue that this would be heinous sin. According to our laws is a man allowed to marry his mother? Of course not, that falls outside the definition of marriage. A man may not marry his mother, for the time being that is not lawful even by man’s laws. It would certainly cause a lot of problems if it was lawful. Same goes for siblings, you may not marry your sibling.

If marriage is not an objective standard with objective limits and boundaries, then marriage has no meaning. God has instituted marriage as being between a man and a woman. No one is allowed to redefine it!

So in closing, while I do not believe proposition 8 is/was unconstitutional, I don’t care. If it is, the constitution would need to conform to God’s law.