legislation and morality...

It was with concerted ambivalence that i read about yesterday's announcement that California's proposition 8 had been struck down. For those of you who are fortunate enough to stay away from national news propaga....er, media, Californians recently voted by the narrowest of margins (52% to 48%) to make same-gender marriage illegal. Then just yesterday, we learned that a federal judge ruled this statue unconstitutional according to Amendment XIV section 1 which states:

"....No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..."

Understandably, the judge felt that by denying same-sex couples the right to marry, he was abridging their privilege of happy coexistence, leading to his decision to strike down the statute, which will most likely be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court.

Which brings me back to said ambivalence. I feel like I should be outraged at morals decaying, or sliding down a slippery slope to iniquity...but instead I can't help but shrug this off with little more than a "meh." I'm conflicted on multiple levels, so maybe addressing both sides will help remedy that. Or maybe not.

Those who would say that Prop 8 was a bad thing and that the judge did right.... keep in mind that the amendment that this decision was based on was ratified immediately after the Civil War. Its sole purpose at the time was to overrule court decisions in Southern states that denied citizenship and basic human rights to minorities (decisions like Dred Scott v. San[d]ford, which said that slaves and any of their descendants could not be citizens). The amendment in question has everything to do with race-based denial of human rights. In fact, most of the rest of the text of that amendment has to do with reinstating disgraced politicians from former Confederate states. Seems like the decision was based on something taken well out of context. Maybe the judge missed his calling as a Baptist minister...

I would also say that this is another case of the federal government overstepping its bounds. One of the most important amendments (and also one of the most overlooked) is the tenth, which states that

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

meaning that anything not specifically delineated as a responsibility of the US Government is not a concern of the US Government. Remember that we are not simply one autonomous nation like France or Ecuador or Angola. We began as a union of thirteen individual and sovereign states and remain a union of fifty sovereign states to this day. Any power that the federal government has in the first place only exists because the states gave it away to them. The rights of the individual states should not be infringed upon except in matters of national importance, which I don't believe this really is if you compare it to things like defense, security, fiscal matters, foreign relations, et al.

Those who would say that Prop 8 was a victory for everything right and virtuous... I humbly proffer these questions, as I can't find a good answer for them myself. If you truly believe that alternative sexualities are wrong, do you really think a law like this will bring them back to a correct lifestyle? How many gay people have ever become straight simply because of a law? Also, this seems like a case of legislating a particular moral position, one associated with a particular religion, which the government has no business doing. (Some might argue that other statutes such as ones against rape and murder also have a basis in religious moral law, but the difference there is that almost no one would argue that rape and murder and the like are good things.) Marriage is first and foremost a religious institution, one with its roots in the world's oldest religions, and again, the government's job is not to regulate religious institutions. Nor should churches ask them to do so.

Also, doesn't it seem like a symptom of what churches are frequently guilty of...trying to "fix" people instead of love people? It isn't the job of Christians or their churches to make thieves quit stealing, or adulterers stop fornicating, or final-exam-cheaters cease their eye-wandering. According to John 16 that job is expressly reserved for the Holy Spirit. Our job is to encourage people to follow the path of Jesus' teaching (Mt 28:19-20) and to proclaim that God's kingdom is at work here on earth (Lk 9).

Remember that when Christians come out en masse to support such things, very rarely does anyone see compassion, humility, and all the other things that Jesus was known for. All it is another bit of confirming and damning evidence that Christians are judgmental (Mt 7:1), hateful (Jn 13:14), self-righteous (Mt 5:20), hypocritical (Rom 2:1), politically motivated (Mt 22:21), and misguided.

Which comes back to my ambivalence. I don't think that not having this law is going to create any problems that having this law would fix. In the end it's just another red herring. Distractions like these are ultimately fruitless towards our greater purpose.