Ah, sunny California, the land of the progressive, and the home of the rich liberal. It should come as no surprise to anyone that the state that gave us Berkeley, the Hollywood Left, and Harvey Milk (who I mention solely because they are making some idiotic movie about him and the commercials (not surprisingly) are everywhere), today gives us people who actually believe that the state’s constitution is unconstitutional, per that state’s constitution.

As anyone not living in a cave knows, Californians once again defied their courts and their leftist benefactors by voting in a constitutional amendment specifically defining marriage as between one man and one woman. The amendment, known in the 2008 election as “Proposition 8” was fiercely attacked by people who believe marriage to simply be a microcosmic civil contract between parties with no broader societal effect. More than just gays and gay activists lent their support to the defeat of Proposition 8, which proposition was necessary because a prior referendum – which had simply made the definition a matter of statutory rather than constitutional law – had been declared unconstitutional by the California Supreme Court. “Republican” Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, the California Episcopal Church and The California Secretary of State – who titled the Proposition a measure that “Eliminates the right of same-sex couples to marry” – not to mention most of Hollywood opposed the measure. Commercials libeling Mormons – who supported the measure – as violent, rights-grabbing thugs abounded. The title of the proposition was deliberately made to pretend that a vote for the proposition was a vote to eliminate someone’s God-given rights. Polls were slanted to show majority opposition to the measure – and later declared inaccurate because of last-minute campaigning by church leaders as opposed to biased polling. More work was put into defeating this measure than was put into electing Barack Obama President, which is saying something.

And still the people voted to explicitly define marriage. Yes, it was only 52%, not a huge majority, but considering the campaign to stop it in the most left-leaning state in the country, by far, that’s still a fair percentage. The fact that how to vote was confusing – many thought “yes” meant “allow gay marriage” – and the fact that the measure appeared to call for the “elimination” of someone’s “rights” if you just read the title probably had something to do with the fact that it was a close election and not a 65-35% blowout, as has happened before.

And yet, the same-sex “marriage” forces still won’t accept defeat. I’ll give them credit, they are persistent. But, then again, so are Islamist terrorists, and they aren’t quite so unethical as gay privileges activists.

Oh, wait, you didn’t think the gay privileges activists were being unethical? You thought they were just being persistent and manipulative? Well, let’s see. First off, there’s the dishonest and manipulative title of the proposition.  You know, the part that says “Eliminates the right…” First off, the right of a man to marry a man does not exist, never has, never will. Rights don’t come from government, they come from God. Government merely affirms and protects or denies and oppresses them. That’s how the US Constitution reads, and why it was written that way. The “right” to same-sex marriage is a concept created, not even by government, but by a tiny segment of a tiny segment of the population. Therefore, it isn’t a right but a privilege. Since the right didn’t exist in the first place, it cannot be eliminated. Eliminating privileges given to a class of people based on some accidental characteristic – in this case their sexual behavior – is the most important principle of our form of government. 

You then have all the protests and commercials and videos. Church services were disrupted by gay privileges activists. Christians were assaulted and their belongings damaged (the woman with the Styrofoam cross, for example). Videos calling Christianity bigoted, and saying that God or Jesus would allow gay behavior now because society wants it (which isn’t true, either) were run before, during, and after the election.

Now we come to the pending court case. They want you to believe that a provision in the state’s constitution is unconstitutional. In particular, they claim that Proposition 8 should not have been an “amendment” but a “revision.” Further, they state that the California Constitution requires that “revisions” be approved by 2/3 vote of both houses of the legislature. “They” are lying.

Article XVIII of the Constitution of California provides three methods to amend or revise said constitution. The legislature may propose the amendment or revision by 2/3 vote. It may create a constitutional convention by 2/3 vote, which convention only needs a majority vote to propose the amendment or revision. The electorate may amend the constitution by initiative. And all amendments and revisions proposed are voted on by the people. However, there is no apparent distinction between a “revision” and an “amendment.” Nowhere in the Constitution of California is “revision” or “amendment” defined. Furthermore, even presuming that there is a distinction, and that a “revision” means a change to existing text or the repeal of an existing provision in the constitution as opposed to simply adding to it, there is no enumerated right to “marry” someone of the same sex. In fact, Article I Section 7 paragraph (b) states, and I quote: “A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens.” Any man, gay or not, can marry any one woman, gay or not, provided that neither is already married and that they don’t have a prohibited degree of consanguinity. 

The rule applies the same to everyone. A polygamist Mormon or Muslim, or a person who believes he should be allowed to marry (a) his sister, (b) a minor child, or (c) his sheep are also prohibited from entering into those “marital” relationships. (It is worth noting here that marrying multiple wives, close relatives, and children all have infinitely greater historical and modern traditions than a man “marrying” a man, yet no one seriously expects the government to allow any of that.) The “right to marry” that gays claim really means the privilege of defining marriage to include their peculiar sexual proclivities. If peculiar sexual proclivities give someone (or some group) the right to redefine marriage to fit those proclivities, why, then, can a particularly promiscuous man not marry more than one woman to legitimize his multiple sexual relationships? Or why can a pedophile not marry a child (or combining the two, multiple children?) I’m not saying that allowing gays to marry will definitely put us on the “slippery slope” to adult-child or bestial marriage. I am saying that if you allow gays to redefine marriage, not allowing polygamists to do so to fit their peculiar proclivities gives one group of people a privilege not enjoyed by all equally.

It should surprise no one that a lifestyle that necessarily violates natural laws and people openly and obviously hostile to the teaching of God’s morality have no moral qualms about distorting the realities of their life choices. It should also surprise no one that such people prefer to leave decisions on the law to unelected judges rather than the electorate. As with all Leftist policies it’s all about control. They want to be the ones to define morality, to the exclusion of your church, your parents, and your own conscience. Because when they can define morality, they can say that things like intolerance, environmental irresponsibility, and bigotry are all far greater sins than piddly things like adultery (Bill Clinton), theft (Winona Ryder, Sandy Berger), murder (OJ Simpson, Andrea Yates), and treason (John Walker Lindh); and that believing differently is a sign of intolerance (see above.)

In this country we are supposed to have checks and balances among the branches of government (executive, legislative, judicial) so that one cannot wield too much power. Both the US Constitution and the constitutions of the several states provide for those checks and balances by separating powers among them. Legislators make the laws, executives put the laws into effect, and jurists apply the laws to particular actions and ensure that they follow the appropriate constitution. If the jurists can declare the constitution unconstitutional, what protection do we have from them?