Gay "Marriage" and overriding the will of the people

Today the California Supreme Court overruled the will of the people and rewrote the law to affirm "gay Marriage" in the state of California.

I will address the moral, ethical and logical problems at another time but today I just want to address a fundamental constitutional issue, namely that it is not within the jurisdiction of the court to make law or to rewrite the state constitution to find rights that were not previously there or intended by the original framers of that constitution.

The purpose and the extent of the authority of the Supreme Court, whether state or federal, is to interpret and apply the laws and to see that those laws are in keeping with the intent of the constitution. The problem arises in that some relativistic judges believe that the constitution is a "living document" that can be reinterpreted for every generation.

Underlying this is a worldview that says that there are no absolutes, that law is about "will to power" and that it is impossible to actually determine original intent so we are free to decide what "something means to me." They apply this to law by saying that we need to take into account the mores and opinions of the current generation rather than try to discern what the intent was of the framers of the said law or, in this case, the constitution.

From a legal standpoint I have several issues. First, I would argue that it was not within the view of the framers of the California State Constitution to affirm the legality of "Homosexual Marriage." For us to find that "right" in the constitution is to read into it something that was not there and not intended by the original framers.

Secondly, there was a law passed in 1077 that defined marriage as "a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between a man and a woman." Beyond that there was a voter initiative passed in 2000 that clarified that further by saying that, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." This not only bans "gay marriage" but also polygamy.

Finally, related to the second point, the court has overthrown the will of the people. It was the express intent of the people of California to affirm and clarify the law that was already on the books to define what marriage is and is not. That is within the rights of the people and by extension the right of the legislature but it is not within the authority of the courts to decide that.

What was done today was done under the guise of civil rights. First of all, one would need to argue that marriage must be defined broadly or else it is a violation of rights. However, we are within our rights to define marriage the way it has been done within our country since its founding and the way it has been historically in most cultures from time immemorial.

We pass laws all the time to define what marriage is. We say that a brother and sister may not marry. We have said that an adult may not marry a child. We have said that a person cannot have multiple wives. We have also said that marriage must be between two human beings (therefore you cannot marry your dog).

I’ll address this issue again looking at it from an historical and biblical perspective. But let me reiterate my point here in saying that the state supreme court overstepped their authority in undermining the will of the legislature and the people by redefining the entire concept of marriage.

At this point only a constitutional amendment can override the great travesty that has been done and that is exactly what we intend to do in November unless the activist court tries to block that by divine fiat as well.