In the wake of the Nov. 4 vote to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman in the state of California, many churches and organizations have felt the wrath of the homosexual community as it has sought to fight the will of the California voters. The New York Times, the Washington Post, and USA Today have all posted daily articles about the outrage of the homosexual community, which far exceeds the coverage they gave to the proposition before it was passed with a 52% approval by the citizens of California.
But what strikes me as most peculiar is today’s article in the San Francisco Chronicle that declares, with a bit of biased glee, that the State Supreme Court will hear the case on whether the changes made by Proposition 8 are constitutional.
In California, homosexual couples enjoy the rights of a Civil Union and have much of the same access to healthcare and civil rights that heterosexual couples enjoy, but the people of California have spoken on more than one occasion and have told the government they prefer to keep the cultural implications of the word “marriage” in tact. In exit polling from the Nov. 4 election, the results show that African Americans and Hispanics voted against gay marriage by a margin far greater than that of the white citizens.
And yet, the homosexual community has targeted predominately white churches in its bid to use annoyance and force to supplant the will of the majority. The tactics these groups have employed resemble those used by the Ku Klux Klan after the end of slavery, complete with vandalism, intimidation, and in some cases violence.
But what I find the most disturbing is the argument that the judges of California’s Supreme Court have decided to hear. The case brought against the proposition calls it unconstitutional, which makes little sense to those of us who aren't lawyers. If Proposition 8 amended the Constitution of California, then the definition of marriage described in the bill has become the constitutional rule of law on the matter.
I understand that there may be complications due to what can be perceived as conflicting clauses in the state law, but it seems evident that the vote of the people of California should change the precedence of other clauses in the constitution. The people of California have spoken with their votes, and they have told the government what they want. If the judges in the California Supreme Court overturn the constitution by declaring it unconstitutional, then perhaps they should balance the California budget by cutting the jobs of all the other branches of government and do away with the costly voting process all-together.