When the Supreme Court of California overturned a defining marriage law that passed 2-to-1 in the popular vote, I wonder where the voice of the people has gone. I find it somewhat disturbing that the justices can change well over 3,000 years of written history defining that marriage is between a man and a woman. The interesting thing is that this law was also designed to guarantee the same basic civil rights to homosexual partners. There was no tangible discrimination in this. It is just a plain, verifiable fact. Homosexuality is a trait that defies the basic laws of nature. With all do respect, gays and lesbians are literally freaks of nature. I don’t say that to be mean, it is simply a scientific fact. Why then should the definition of marriage change? In my opinion, it shouldn’t.
Now with this law being overturned, the precedent has been set against us, and I truly think we need to act fast to set our own precedent wherever we can–an amendment to every state constitution in this country that defines marriage being between a man and a woman. Because sooner or later, our first amendment rights will become threatened…
Here’s a story about a Pastor who was put on trial because of his personal beliefs: CBC
If you read the article, you will notice that only one side of the argument was considered:
“Nichols had complained to the human rights commission, too, arguing that for the province to require him to perform same-sex ceremonies contrary to his religious beliefs was discriminatory. The commission did not allow that complaint to proceed, however.”
I am not saying we do not or should not respect people’s choices and individuality, but I will fight for my right to practice my religion, just as I will fight to allow anyone else to do so.
Other posts you might enjoy