You know I rarely get political, but I feel this is tremendously important.
I've spent some time earlier on my blog discussing the merits of traditional marriage, so I won't go into that now. But as we approach our chance to make our opinions known, it is important to have the facts. Go to their website for some great information.
Here is their argument in a nutshell:
Three R’s of Proposition 8
Restore the definition of marriage. Man-woman marriage is the only natural way to build families, which in turn builds a society. In the United States, same-sex couples are free to live as they choose. It is dangerous, however, to treat marriage as a "social construct" that is changeable. Husband-wife unions are the basic source of society. Because society is not the source of marriage's definition, it cannot change the accurate description of marriage by its own will.
Reaffirm Proposition 22, by which California voters upheld man-woman marriage. A strong majority upheld the natural definition of marriage in this 2000 statewide referendum. Prop 22 amended state civil code, however, and the California Supreme Court said it violated the state constitution. Prop 8 would amend the constitution itself to secure husband-wife marriage.
Reject judicial activism. In May 2008, four judges voted that laws "limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples violate the state constitutional rights of same-sex couples." They overturned laws passed by voters and the state legislature, to create same-sex marriage. Yet their job is to interpret the real meaning of the law and apply it to specific situations -- not to create new laws. Lawmaking on such a pivotal issue, by unelected officials, is tyranny and it should not be permitted.
Posts
4 comments:
amen!
It's nutts !! I see the ads on TV here. Why do these guys think they can just keep changing our constitution? It would be time well spent if they would try to do something we actually cared about! And not what might get them a few more votes !!.........Uncle Kent
I still struggle with the first argument. I agree that society isn't the source of marriage's definition, but who is? If it our Christian definition of marriage is the construct by which marriage is judged, shouldn't marriage between 2 non-Christians be illegal too? Is it really marriage if there isn't any real commitment to God?
However it's the second 2 that are swaying me some. If a majority of citizens voted to legalize gay marriage, I probably wouldn't fight it too much. I don't think we win many (or any) morality battles in the political arena. But the idea of legislating from the bench is scary, and coupled with my personal convictions will probably be enough to sway my vote.
WE HAVE A PICKET IN FRONT OF OUR HOUSE!
Post a Comment