Vince Deagler

second blog this week, please check out what i wrote the other day.

in case you have not been keeping up with current events, today, as i write, the supreme court of california is hearing arguments on the validity of proposition 8.  lets take a look back in time and see how we got here.  several years ago, californians went to the polls and passed proposition 22 which would define marriage in california as being between only one man and one woman.  this passed with over 60% support.  but remember, we are talking about california, so the proposition was challenged in court as being unconstitutional.  since we live in california (sometimes referred to as the land of fruit and nuts), proposition 22 was found to be unconstitutional because the state constitution did not specifically define marriage and this “new ” definition would therefore violate the civil rights of gays.  now we have blogged on this before, but exactly what rights are being denied to the gay community?  as far as i can tell, this is only a valid claim if you consider marriage itself to be a constitutionally protected right.  this is exactly how the supreme court saw it in their ruling.  again, we have blogged on this, to see marriage as a constitutionally protected right is a dangerous precedent to set.  on what basis do you then deny other, non-traditional marriage arrangements.  you know, things like incest, polygamy, group marriage, adults marrying underage children, etc.  why is gay marriage better than any other marriage arrangement just mentioned.  why should it be allowed as a constitutionally protected right and these others denied.  i have not heard anyone who advocates for the gay marriage position answer either of these questions.  these 2 questions are crucial:  what “rights” are being denied?  why should a gay marriage be more protected than some other marriage arrangement if marriage is indeed a constitutional right?  but again, this isn’t what i want to address.  so let me get back to my point.  once the courts over-ruled prop 22, a movement began to amend the constitution of our state.  this resulted in proposition 8.  proposition 8 is an amendment to the state constitution whereby the state constitution would now define marriage as being between one man and one woman.  it passed with a 52% majority.  end of discussion right?  no, remember we live in california.  the attorney general of our state, you know, the person in authority whose highest purpose is to defend the state’s constitution is now asking the court to set aside the state constitution.  the supreme court of our state, you know, the people who are responsible to interpret the constitution are now sitting in judgment as to whether the constitution of our state is constitutional.  in case you don’t understand, this is impossible, therefore it is ridiculous.  the constitution cannot be unconstitutional.  it may be disagreed with, it may be objectionable, it may be altered and amended.  but by definition it cannot be unconstitutional.  this is a matter of law and common sense.  now, here is my point.  think about our state and our ongoing budget woes.  i cannot even begin to understand the kind of debt we as a state are in.  but yet, we continue to spend money on a special interest groups personal mission to re-define traditional american institutions.  in other words, we are paying for all these lawsuits.  money that could be spent elsewhere, in much more meaningful ways, instead is being spent to legitimize a total re-definition of our society against the clear will of the people as evidenced by both prop 22 and prop 8.  the constitution does not belong to the judges, or the attorney general, it belongs to the people.  the attorney general should understand his job.  what is it?  to defend the constitution of the state of california.  that constitution now clearly defines marriage as between one man and one woman.  he may not like it, that is not the issue.  his job is to defend it.  he can always resign his position and begin a movement to change the constitution.  but to use his position, to argue against the constitution he is charged with upholding is egregious.  this is why i entitled this blog no further explanation necessary.  we have a governor who does not govern, a legislature that does not legislate, a judicial branch that is out of control, a bureaucracy that is failing, and as a result our state is in a shambles. 

as a christain this does not surprise me.  paul spells out many times what is to be expected as time marches on.  things will get worse and worse.  so, how should we respond?  i believe we should stay informed…hence this blog.  utilize the rights afforded to us as citizens to vote, petition, speak out, etc.  live out clearly what it means to be a christ follower.  christians are called “salt” and “light”.  we have been strategically placed in the midst of this culture to be salt and light.  (please remember as you speak out, to do so in truth and love as ephesians 4:15 teaches.  to fail in this regard will render our speech useless or even counter-productive) 

now, i do not think this will alter the big picture of our state, nation, or world.  but having said that i do think by living as salt and light we just might change, probably will change a life here and there along the way.  that is why it is worth the effort to keep trying to be salt and light.  jesus did not supplant a secular rome with a christianized version.  but he did establish the church to be a moral voice, salt and light, that he could use to change the world.  not as a political movement, but as a spiritual voice.  so, in the midst of business as usual in sacramento.  lets speak up.  god just might use something we say to change a life.  i’d love to hear from you.  drop me a line at pefcvince@sbcglobal.net .  blessings.  vince