The "Extreme Court" has done it again. This week, they decided that the voters of California nor God almighty Himself were as wise as they were.
Now, while I understand the technical legal nature of their decision, the effect was to ignore a substantial majority of voters in California who twice affirmed the biblical, historical, and natural law definition of marriage of one man/one woman.
Even if you think people of the same gender should marry, I'd like to think that you might feel that such a major cultural shift ought to be in the hands of the people who are supposed to hold ultimate authority under our government.
Even in the decision on Defense of Marriage, or DOMA, the legislation was passed overwhelmingly by both houses of Congress in a bi-partisan vote and it was signed by a Democrat, President Bill Clinton.
No matter that some who voted for it say they have "evolved" and that they are now against it. But if that's so, then put it back before the world's greatest deliberative body and the People's House and see how it flies.
Same-sex marriage is newer than Google and the iPod, and the first nation to ever codify it into law didn't do so until the year 2000. Now I'm told that I need to get on the right side of history and support the marriage of two people of the same gender.
Well, I respectfully believe that I am on the right side of history, because the history is pretty long on marriage between a man and a woman; not so much for other versions. Despite the frothing of the advocates to the contrary, I'm neither a homophobe nor a hater.
I am simple enough to believe that a marriage of one man and one woman not only is the only biological combination capable of creating the next generation, but in the context of a monogamous and committed relationship, it's the best context for children to learn how to replace their parents.
Now, if we are determined to change the definition of marriage to accommodate how people feel and what they wish to do because of their mutual consent, then we should immediately release those incarcerated for practicing polygamy or bigamy, and frankly, let's make all consensual adult behaviors legal, whether prostitution, assisted suicide, or even drinking 16 ounce sodas in New York City.
Now, as much as I'd love to be loved and admired by all, I can't defy the definition of marriage any more than I can defy the law of gravity. God created both and at the point I decided to follow Him in my Christian commitment, my life nor its rules belong to me anymore.
As for the argument that it's a matter of equality, let me gently point out that the issue is not equality, but sameness. Equality means intrinsic worth and value and would guarantee one's right to vote, rent or buy a house, go to school, or receive medical care. But equality of worth doesn't create sameness.
There are differences between men and women, and votes of Congress nor the "Extreme Court" can change that. After 39 years of marriage, I won't pretend that I understand women, but I know there's a difference.
Courts said in 1857 that black people weren't fully human and the court was wrong. They said in 1962 that we couldn't pray in school and the court was wrong. In 1973, they said unborn children were disposable and expendable, and 56 million dead children later, they were wrong.
And this week, for those of us who believe that God created male and female, and who believe what Jesus said that a man shall leave his father and mother and a woman shall leave her home and the two will become one flesh, well, to us, the court was wrong yet again.