The coming post-Prop-8-overturn Armageddon

Chuck Colson lets loose on the Proposition 8 overturning by Judge Vaughn Walker yesterday:  Judging Marriage

He starts off with a recap of the trial and ruling, summing it up as:

Even though his ruling isn’t surprising, his dismissal of the opinions of the people of California and five thousand-plus years of human tradition is breath-taking. Then again, inasmuch as Walker is one of the few openly gay federal judges, maybe his dismissal shouldn’t shock us, either.

Which, in a nutshell, has been the reaction from the Religious Right today, which seems to believe that if (a) that’s the way it’s always been, and (b) a majority says that’s the way it should be, then (c) it is clearly constitutional, and the only person who would say otherwise is a faggot.

From there, though, Colson gets into Armageddon-land.

Let’s be clear. What’s at stake here goes beyond California and even beyond marriage itself. The reasoning that overturned California’s law, that said that the right of gays to marry is a fundamental constitutional right, would, if applied nationally, overturn similar laws throughout the country.

Correct! Well, he got one right.

As Pastor Jim Garlow, who led the Proposition 8 campaign, points out, it would be a mistake to think that the battle about the definition of marriage is only over marriage—disastrous as that is. A loss on this issue will have devastating consequences for our personal freedoms.

Because …?

Garlow points to the weakening of parental rights, of course the attack on religious freedom and individuals practicing their faith in public. People who oppose same-sex marriage will be forced to choose between full participation in public life and fidelity to their convictions.

Sort of like gays?

I think I missed the part where Judge Walker said that people have to burn their Bibles, renounce Christ, and marry people of the same gender (as amusing as that thought is).  What he said was that the state has no compelling case to discriminate in terms of how it interacts with its citizens based solely on sexual orientation.

So what comes next? An appeal to Ninth Circuit, the most liberal circuit court in America, and an expedited appeal to Supreme Court.

But my hopes are instead in the groundswell of public outrage and resistance. This is re-writing the Constitution of the United States and undermining the most basic institutions of civilized society.

Actually, it’s applying the Constitution of the United States to a state law that discriminates. It’s actually recognizing the value of marriage and noting that no rational (as opposed to traditional) basis was given for violating it.

Thought Exercise here:  The citizens of the State of Colorado passes a law by a narrow majority (more men turn out than women) that say that women should not be allowed to hold jobs in the workplace, own property, or vote.  A Federal Judge rules that this violates the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the Constitution.  Is that a “re-writing” of the Constitution?

Certainly thousands of years of  tradition in Western Civilization, until the past mere century or so, would support the idea that women should be “barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen.”  (And, yes, I daresay there are those in the Religious Right who wouldn’t particularly consider that a bad thing.)  But, really, we be hearing the same yammering about it? Including from the distaff portion of the Religious Right?

How about interracial marriage?  Religious teachers (some of them) railed against it.  Local majorities despised it. Centuries of tradition forbade it.

When the Supreme Court said states couldn’t forbid it, was that “re-writing” the Constitution?  Was that a threat to religious freedom?  Did democracy die, and (worse) America turn into Western Europe?

The point of the Constitution’s rights is that the “groundswell” of the majority’s “outrage” (assuming such) ought not to be able to trample on the rights of the minority.  You can’t treat people differently under the law for being Christian or Muslim or Quaker or female or male or blond or African-American or Estonian-American or gay or bisexual unless you can demonstrate a compelling state interest in doing so.  One of those people being “icky” or “obviously inferior” or “immoral” is not a compelling state interest — it’s a personal moral and aesthetic judgment.

Heck if public judgment of who’s “immoral” were the basis of Constitutional Law, a lot of us would be in trouble.  If each of our marriages were subject to approval or dismissal by our local community … fewer would be, I suspect, married.

This is why we’ve signed the Manhattan Declaration. You should come to www.manhattandeclaration.org, and sign on and get your friends to sign on. It’s time we took a stand. Millions of us have got to speak up and say, “No, we’ll give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, never to Caesar what belongs to God.”

Which is fine by me. But what Mr Colson wants is to actually force Caesar to act on God’s behalf (or what a majority of people think is on God’s behalf), which is a different kettle of fish altogether — and not the sort of Constitution that the Founders seem to have had in mind at all.

Which is fine by me, too.