... and the Ugly

As supporters of the traditional definition of marriage, you’d think we’d be pleased as punch that a proposal to amend the state constitution to define marriage as a union “between a man and a woman” received enough signatures to qualify for the November ballot (or as the L.A. Times so even-handedly states, “an initiative barring gay marriage”).

We’re not. As we’ve stated previously, it should not have ever got to this point. The people spoke pretty clearly via Prop. 22 back in ’99 regarding what they thought the definition of marriage was but unfortunately, the California State Supreme Court turned family counselors, waved their magic wand and made the “right” to same-sex marriage appear from the pages of the state Constitution.

So here we are. We’re not looking forward to this upcoming task because we’re not sure something like this belongs in a Constitution. Constitutions contain big idea stuff (cue the Battle Hymn) – Constitutions protect citizens' rights from the unlawful seizure of property by the government. Constitutions guarantee fair and speedy trials decided upon by one's fellow citizens. Constitutions grant and protect the franchise to vote. These are Big Ideas – these are Western Civilization ideals and aspirations that we have fought Revolutionary, Civil and World Wars to maintain.

Now, apparently, Constitutions will state who can and cannot get married. Sorry, it doesn’t fit.

At this time, we don’t know if we will vote “yay” or just abstain. We welcome any comments if we are over-looking something as an attempt to sway our vote.