In your estimation then, does the fact that whether or not marriage is sacred may be considered to be debateable make it acceptable for it to be redefined by a few activist judges?
Marriage is a contract enforceable by the state via the court system. Do activist judges have the right to legislate which contracts our courts will and will not enforce? Do they enjoy the power to do this in place of representative legislatures?
Personally, I think the time has come to nourish the roots of the tree of liberty once again.
There are some who believe that marriage is, in fact, sacred. There are others who believe that any sacramentental aspect of marriage was lost when the state began to predicate the provision of certain rights and services upon it. Can any rite be truly sacramental when given the imprimatur of a human institution? I would argue no.
FL queried:
In your estimation then, does the fact that whether or not marriage is sacred may be considered to be debateable make it acceptable for it to be redefined by a few activist judges?
I apologize for omitting my answer to your original question. In my opinion, the idea of marriage as a sacrament must be divorced from the idea of marriage as a state-recognized contractual relationship. Much of the uproar around gay marriage comes from people overwrought at the idea of homosexuals gaining access to sacramental rites that they feel have been biblically (or otherwise) reserved to heterosexuals. I think the tenor of this uproar and the debate in general would change if we could separate its sacramental and contractual aspects.
My opinions regarding gay marriage are based on this division. I believe that the sacramental aspect of marriage should be defined by the tenets of the religion (if any) under which the marriage is being performed. If the Koran, forbids gay marriage then so be it; if the Bible forbids gay marriage then so be it. In either case, men or women of the cloth can refuse the sacrament. I think current debate over the admittance of gay ministers to the Episcopal church is a good example of this kind of debate, if not this debate exactly.
Furthermore, in my opinion, it ought to be left up to the polity of each state to determine to whom exactly the right of marital contract should be accorded. If the polity determines through popular vote that homosexuals should be denied the right, so be it. If judges, activist or otherwise, determine that such a law is contrary to the state constitution, so be it. State laws and constitutions reflect the aggregated norms of their constituencies, and can be changed to reflect such. If those constituencies feel that homosexuals should not be given the rights that flow from contractual marriage, that's a policy decision that I can respect.
The MA decision pretty well reflects this division, I think. The court's main focus was on the benefits that flow from marriage and the fact that the state law denied those benefits, with no rational basis, to homosexuals. People are incensed because they see this as judges requiring the provision of a sacrament to homosexuals, but the MA court didn't do that. In no way, shape or form did the judges require any religious body to provide a sacrament to homosexuals. Rather, the court said that state was required under the state concept of equal protection to recognize the contractual aspects of gay marriage. Though the decision is politically and religiously charged, it's not significantly different from the court concluding that certain types of contracts are uneforceable (i.e. because they are contrary to public policy.
What we are seeing now in MA is in fact, just what we should see: the state legislature contemplating changes to the state constitution for approval/disapproval by the polity reflecting that polity's aggregated norms concerning gay marriage. If the voters of MA want to give or take away contractual marriage rights to homosexuals, that is what they should do.
Cheers!
Everett Volk