California Anti-Democratic Activists Judges At It Again

Well, not a huge surprise, but WND reports “Prop 8: Federal judge nixes California ‘gay’-marriage ban”.  Unfortunately, I’ve come to expect that California’s judges don’t want to hear about the will of the people, majority rules or any other justification built upon democratic ideals.

But, you know, that really is how it goes, doesn’t it?  Once the Bible is no longer your foundation in any way, shape or form whatsoever, what is left to base morality on?

When I was much younger, I marveled at the story of Sodom and Gomorrah.  It seems like another planet to me.  I mean, what did homosexual behavior have to do with forcibly raping 2 strangers?  It was until I was much older that I realized that once you base your morality upon what you want and what you deem correct that it isn’t morality at all.  It is simply the pursuit of selfish desires.  It doesn’t matter if the object is the opposite sex, the same sex or something completely different, because it is based upon selfishness.

Indeed, that is what the entire “gay marriage” premise is based upon – selfishness.  It is immaterial that it harms society.  It is immaterial that it leads to a further erosion of the family.  The proponents want what they want, and it doesn’t matter who is harmed in the process.

I listened to an audio message recently where someone asked, “Why don’t you talk about murder?”  OK, let’s talk about murder.  Murderers do not care about who is harmed.  It is the carrying out of selfish desires for selfish ends.

It is the same difference.  Sin is sin.

I’m ignoring, of course, the fact that Christians do talk about murder.  After all, that is what the entire pro-life movement is about.

The US at least used to have the concept that marriage was a special relationship recognized by both God and state.  Divorce in most states had to prove some sort of harm being perpetrated upon one party by the other.  It was difficult.

Soon after divorce became acceptable, – big surprise!—the number of divorces skyrocketed.  Then, people reasoned that in order to “be happy”, they would avoid marriage and live together.

You don’t have to look far to see the results of all this social experimentation.  Violence among youth on the increase, children being raised in poverty, jails busting at the seams, broken and addicted lives, and the list goes on.

So, now let’s just pour gas on the fire, shall we?  We’ll just add social experiment to social experiment until the entire culture falls under the weight of a sandy foundation.  We have not learned the lessons of civilizations before us when they started killing their young, divorcing at will and pursued pleasure at all costs.

I never thought that things could happen so fast.  However, now I wonder how little time it will be before polygamists and pedophiles are granted their “rights”.  After all, if sexual orientation is determined by genetics, then it is hypocritical to discriminate against them as well.


  1. Let's reverse the situation here. If the public vote had been 52-48 the other way and the judge had ruled in favor of traditional marriage, would you be making the same argument about democracy?

    Or would it be a matter of a wise judge deciding God's ways are higher than man's ways (Isa. 55:9)?

  2. John D Carmack

    @Richard: Actually, isn't it more of a matter of immorality vs amorality? A judge is given a specific job title with a specific responsibility. If he or she bucks that responsibility, then they are exhibiting a lack of morality. If they, however, back the current laws, even if they don't agree with them, then a case can be made that they are backing an immoral law, however they are showing a sense of morality in doing so.

    Judge Vaughn Walker evidently cannot base his decisions either on law or the Bible, thus making his decision amoral.

    Of course, neither immoral nor amoral will fly in God's presence, so arguing which is better is probably quite immaterial. That's why political involvement by Christians is dangerous business. Sooner or later you are expected to compromise your beliefs.

  3. Absolutely it's a matter of morality. My point is that using a "majority rules" argument in matters of Biblical morality is inherently flawed.

    The majority ruled in the wilderness long ago — and God let thousands of Israelites die there.

    The majority ruled one morning in Jerusalem — and Jesus wound up crucified.

    The majority probably will oppose Jesus when He comes again — and Zechariah and Revelation indicate the majority will be wrong again.

    But you + God can make a majority. Thank God for that.

  4. John D Carmack

    @Richard: OK, but my point was that it was not a moral judgment even by human standards.

    BTW, God – you still makes a majority. It's sort of like infinity in that regard.