Vince Deagler

for those of you not following the news, yesterday a federal judge in san francisco ruled that prop 8, passed in 2008, amending the state constitution to define marriage in california as between a man and a woman, was unconstitutional.  one judge has just nullified the vote of 7 million californians.  now, i know what the spin will be.  of course this is the correct decision, it is basically the same principle that led to the abolition of slavery and was instamental in the civil rights movement.  really?  lets compare a bit.

the basis of this ruling was the equal protection clause.  sounds reasonable.  in fact it grew out of slavery and the equal rights movement.  but what is the intent of the equal protection clause, and does it apply?  historically, for instance in the south, 2 people could be arrested for the same crime.  suppose one is white and the other black.  often what happened was the white was treated differently than the black, despite the reality they had committed the same crime.  hence equal protection was needed.  does it apply here?

question 1, can homosexuals marry?  yes.  question 2, how?  the same way as everyone else.  here is the key, they choose not to comply with the law.  equal protection is not the issue because marriage law is not applied unequally.  everyone who complies with the law is permitted to be married.  just because a homosexual wants to marry a same sex partner does not make the law unequal.  just because it disproportionately impacts the homosexual community doesn’t make it unequal.  our society disallows polygamy, the marraige of children to adults, marriage to close relations like a brother or sister, etc.  are polygamists being discriminated against?  what about pedophiles?  or those who would marry their sibling?  do they deserve equal protection?  or is that a mis-application of the law?

in my mind it is a mis-application and an opening of pandoras box.  suppose this same clause were applied to tax law.  we have a progressive tax system.  the more you make, the higher your tax rate.  the less you make, the lower your tax rate.  the tax rate is not equally applied to all, there is no equal protection, seems like an open and shut case to me.  how about the process of getting a drivers license.  there are age, vision, health, intellect, and ability requirements so that many people are not able to get a drivers license.  they do not meet the legal requirement.  is that a violation of the equal protection clause?  it is a complex issue.

now why do i bring this up?  as a christ follower, we live in this culture.  we are called salt and light.  these are current events.  the culture is being told love is love and everyone deserves to be married to the person they love.  it’s only fair.  we should not discriminate, etc.  can you engage in a conversation today and articulate your beliefs in a way that can positively influence our culture?  i hope so.  but to do that we have to know more than a few bible verses.  frankly, many in our culture do not care what the bible says.  but if we can discuss the topic broadly, using history, language, the understanding of law, consequence, etc. perhaps they will be able to hear the scriptural principles on which our belief system is founded.  to me it is consistent with the teaching of peter when he said we are to “…always be prepared to give an answer…”

oh, and one more thought.  do not be intimidated because your belief system is based in the teaching of scripture as if that made it an inferior belief system.  the ruling of this judge is based in his moral values and views.  in his ruling he said california has no interest in differentiating between same sex marriage and opposite sex marriage because that differentiation was an artifact of time when the genders were seen as having distinct roles in society and marriage.  (this would be the perfect time for someone to ask the judge how a woman becomes a father or a man a mother.  the terms father and mother having historical meaning.)  he added that moral and religious views form the only basis for a belief that same sex couples are different from opposite sex couples.  oh really.  what about biology?  the statement “religious and moral views” form the only basis is simply wrong.  men and woman are equal…but they are not identical they are not the same.  men can be fathers, but it is a physical impossibility for them to be mothers.  women can be mothers, but it is physically impossible for them to be fathers.  why do you suppose this is?  creation would give one answer while evolution another.  i ask because either way, by god’s design or evolutionary development (which is always moving toward the optimum state) men and woman are different.  2 men or 2 women cannot do or be what a heterosexual couple can do or be.  i believe there is a reason for this.  boys need to learn how to be men.  girls need to learn how to be a woman.  both need to learn how men and women relate to each other.  whether you agree or not, my point is there certainly is more than religion and morality when making this distinction. 

another question, on what basis are we to assume the morality of this judge is the correct morality?  why is his morality being legislated over the morality of the 7 million californians who voted to define marriage as being between a man and a woman?

according to the judge, he is ensuring everyone is receiving equal protection.  but if that does not apply, and i do not think it does, what is his basis for this decision, is there a basis.  of course there is.  its called political expediency.  who would have ever thought…  keep in mind the focus of this blog is the tip of the iceberg.  there are many other layers to this discussion.  just can’t cover them all right now.

i’m sure there are many points of view out there, i’d love to hear yours.  thanks for reading.  blessings.  vince