On today's California Supreme Court ruling: A good day to be...gay?

(A: Well...yes, but everyone else is out of luck.)

So today the California Supreme Court (otherwise known as 4 guys in black robes) ruled that it's a natural right for two individuals to be married in the state of California (otherwise known as about 36 million people who already voted not to allow same-sex marriage) regardless of sexual orientation. In other words, they did a little something like this:

Supreme Court: "Gay Marriage, meet California. California, meet Gay Marriage. We trust the both of you will get along just fine."

But will they really? California citizens already voted overwhelmingly against allowing gay couples to marry, and a recent poll shows that only about 30% of Californians think gay marriage should be legal. So whether or not this ruling will last long is debatable, but the fact of today is that we are now only the second state in the country - along with Massachusetts - where gay couples can be married. I suppose it's worth mentioning as well that...well, we're definitely not Massachusetts.

Anyway, this is interesting, because it calls into questions quite a few things. Whether or not the CA Justices were right or wrong isn't clear. Certainly we know where the majority of the state stands, but what they think really doesn't matter if those ideals conflict with our constitution. I don't imagine the ruling will last long. If well over half the state feels it's been cheated by a 4-3 vote, they'll take action and an amendment will be added. But again...it's still not clear who is right and who is wrong here.

The Supreme Court has ruled on the basis that two individuals should be allowed the right to marry with no other considerations. Specifically, that a "domestic partnership" does not allow a couple the equal rights that a state-recognized marriage does. Therefore, it's not that gay-marriage is legalized necessarily, it's that "domestic partnerships" are unconstitutional, leaving open only one other option...marriage! Badda-bing, there you have it....by default, gay marriage is now legal.

But hold on a second here! Now we have our state constitution being opened up to specifically protect sexual preferences?! I'm confused by this. The Court wouldn't admit to doing such a thing, but just as they have - by default - legalized gay marriage to avoid discrimination, they've also - by default - suggested that our constitution should not only address, but it should also protect sexual orientation...which - by default - creates an even more discriminatory situation. That's not just a slippery slope, that's a freaking water slide! So in an attempt to uproot discrimination, they've taken the state constitution into the uncharted territory of sexual preferences, and liberated only one group of a larger, still suppressed whole! Gays can now be married, but what about polygamists? The polyandrists? What about incest? People will say, "oh, but the ruling says two people have the right..." True, and that does cover polygamy and so forth, but that's just the point! This wasn't a ruling of numbers so much as it was one to liberate a persons right to choose who he or she will marry. It's one of sexual orientation and that does include polygamy, polyandry, and even incest...yet those groups are left out. The battle for gay-marriage has been won, yet that victory may start a civil liberties war. What a mess...

So you know I'm not just making this stuff up, here's an except from the ruling:

"In contrast to earlier times, our state now recognizes that an individual's capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual's sexual orientation, and, more generally, that an individual's sexual orientation — like a person's race or gender — does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights."

I'm certainly not advocating any lifestyle here, and I'm definitely not suggesting that the Court should now legalize all forms of marriage for all people. No, I'm just confused. To look at the ruling with complete objectivity requires that these questions be asked. Above, one thing is specifically made clear: that sexual orientation does not damage one's ability to have a successful marriage. The implication of that however, is that persons of all preferences should now be granted the right to marry...only that isn't the case. So what today is being hailed (particularly in San Fransisco) as a great civil victory has only brought us to a more confused state as to what is and isn't constitutional. Now that sexual orientation is a consideration, we're going to have to answer to all groups, not just the one that is celebrating now. We haven't done that yet.

I think it's a much bigger mess than we'd like to be in, and the implications could be huge. On a more personal level, and just for the record, I'll say that I'm not entirely sure whether or not gay marriage is right to allow. That's mostly a question of personal faith however. On the one hand I have to say that it isn't right, on the other I have to say that I have no right deny others a right that possibly should be theirs on the basis of a personal belief. Often times, when liberty meets faith, it makes for quite an awkward confrontation, and I've not yet learned how to reconcile the two .

A.W. Tozer Quote

Something I read earlier this morning:

"The average person in the world today, without faith and without God and without hope, is engaged in a desperate personal search throughout his lifetime. He does not really know where he has been. He does not really know what he is doing here and now. He does not know where he is going. The sad commentary is that he is doing it all on borrowed time and borrowed money and borrowed strength; and he already knows that in the end he will surely die! Man, made more like God than any other creature, has become less like God than any other creature. Created to reflect the glory of God, he has retreated sullenly into his cave reflecting only his own sinfulness. Certainly it is a tragedy above all tragedies in this world that man, made with a soul to worship and praise and sing God's glory, now sunlks silently in his cave."

-A.W. Tozer