Two weeks after the California Supreme Court announced
its decision to allow same-sex couples to “marry”, opponents of
same-sex marriage succeeded in placing on the November ballot a
proposed constitutional amendment which states: “Only marriage between
a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” If passed, the
measure would reverse the recent court decision.
Mr. Obama recently made his position public in a letter sent to a San Francisco homosexual activist group.
“I oppose the divisive and discriminatory efforts to amend the
California Constitution, and similar efforts to amend the U.S.
Constitution or those of other states,” wrote Mr. Obama, the
presumptive Democratic presidential nominee.
What makes this divisive and discriminatory? Those are relative
terms, usually applied to people who don’t agree with the accuser.
At the same time John McCain has announced his support
for the California Protection of Marriage initiative in an email
received by the ProtectMarriage.com campaign.
“I support the efforts of the people of California to recognize
marriage as a unique institution between a man and a woman, just as we
did in my home state of Arizona. I do not believe judges should be
making these decisions,” Mr. McCain stated.
And that’s one of the key issues in this and other controversies,
that the people of a state who have acted democratically in voting for
laws should not be bypassed by unelected, unaccountable judges who make
it up from the bench.
The difference in the candidates’ judicial philosophy is stark. They foretell dramatically different futures of this culture.