I heard a story once of a pastor who was squabbling with his deaconate board. The issue of the debate is not really important. Suffice it to say, the pastor was right – and had sufficient biblical evidence to prove his position. Nevertheless, the deaconate, composed of four deacons, was not happy with his position, and were demanding he change. The pastor steadfastly refused. The deacons asked the pastor to come to a special meeting at the church where they intended to bring the pastor to account. It was an ecclesiastical High Noon.

The pastor arrived at the church for the meeting apprehensive, yet resolute. After presenting his case from the Word yet another time, the chairman of the deacons called for a vote on the issue. Paper ballots were passed out to all five men, the pastor and the deacons. The men voted, folded their ballots, and passed them to the chairman.

After counting the ballots, the chairman announced proudly, “The vote is four to one. Pastor, you lose. You need to start doing as we say, or you need to find a new church.”

The pastor stood up defiantly and stated, “I will not! I know that my position is right; and I am sure God is on my side!” At this point, he looked heavenward and prayed, “Dear Lord, give these men a sign that they are wrong!”

At that moment, a lightning bolt struck a power pole outside the church. A thunder clap shook the room, and the lights went out.

A few moments later, the chairman of the deaconate board said, “Pastor, it seems God has voted. But the vote is still four to two. You still lose.” 

---

Yes, this is a foolish story. Yet, foolishness abounds all around us today. In similar fashion, the California Supreme Court shook its fist at Heaven this past week when it overturned what was known as Proposition 22, the California Defense of Marriage Act.

In 2000, 61% of California’s voters, approximately 4,600,000 Californians, voted for this referendum. This referendum defined marriage as “a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between a man and a woman, to which the consent of the parties capable of making that contract is necessary.” In essence, this protected the biblical definition of marriage that we find in Genesis 2:24. Marriage is between one man and one woman.

However, 4 Supreme Court judges, amazingly three of them republicans, voted to overturn the will of the people.

Now, I am not necessarily troubled by a court taking such an action in and of itself. We certainly know that majority rule does not mean the majority is in the right. There are times when an elder, such as in my opening illustration, needs to stand for what is right regardless of the cost. But in this case, where the will of the people is aligned with the Word of God, how can a small minority, just four judges, move to redefine the biblical definition of marriage?

Well, they can because they can. Four votes seem to be far more powerful than the 4,600,000. The beauty of the Constitutional balance of powers has again been ravaged by a liberal agenda.

The majority opinion, by Chief Justice Ronald M. George, declared that “any law that discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation will from this point on be constitutionally suspect in California in the same way as laws that discriminate by race or gender, making the state’s high court the first in the nation to adopt such a stringent standard.”

In essence, the court has stated that homosexuality is analogous to race and gender. Here is where the court’s logic breaks down: One cannot change one’s race. If you were born Caucasian, you will remain Caucasian until you die. If you were born Hispanic, you can’t become Asian. Likewise, if you were born a man, you will always be a man. Despite bizarre medical efforts to look female, a man will always be a man – he will never bear children.

But, homosexuality is an action, it is a choice. It is not the same thing as race or gender, which are part of our very creation. Homosexuality is a behavior – an immoral and unhealthy behavior. In fact, God calls it an abomination (Leviticus 18:22, Romans 1:27).

Writing minority opinion for the three Supreme Court judges who voted to uphold the biblical definition of marriage, Justice Marvin R. Baxter says this:

[A] bare majority of this court, not satisfied with the pace of democratic change, now abruptly forestalls that process and substitutes, by judicial fiat, its own social policy views for those expressed by the People themselves. Undeterred by the strong weight of state and federal law and authority, the majority invents a new constitutional right, immune from the ordinary process of legislative consideration. The majority finds that our Constitution suddenly demands no less than a permanent redefinition of marriage, regardless of the popular will.

I cannot join this exercise in legal jujitsu, by which the Legislature’s own weight is used against it to create a constitutional right from whole cloth, defeat the People’s will, and invalidate a statute otherwise immune from legislative interference. Though the majority insists otherwise, its pronouncement seriously oversteps the judicial power. The majority purports to apply certain fundamental provisions of the state Constitution, but it runs afoul of another just as fundamental- article III, section 3, the separation of powers clause. This clause declares that “[t]he powers of state government are legislative, executive, and judicial,” and that”[p]ersons charged with the exercise of one power may not exercise either of the others” except as the Constitution itself specifically provides.

History confirms the importance of the judiciary’s constitutional role as a check against majoritarian abuse. Still, courts must use caution when exercising the potentially transformative authority to articulate constitutional rights. Otherwise, judges with limited accountability risk infringing upon our society’s most basic shared premise – the People’s general right, directly or through their chosen legislators, to decide fundamental issues of public policy for themselves.

Judicial restraint is particularly appropriate where, as here, the claimed constitutional entitlement is of recent conception and challenges the most fundamental assumption about a basic social institution.

The majority has violated these principles. It simply does not have the right to erase, then recast, the age-old definition of marriage, as virtually all societies have understood it, in order to satisfy its own contemporary notions of equality and justice.

We live in dangerous times of societal change. And we are on a very slippery slope. If this attack on marriage succeeds, what is next? Incest? Polygamy? Pedophilia? Bestiality? By the “logic” used to legalize homosexual marriage, it will not be long until any deviant behavior is seen as normal in the eyes of the State.

William F. Buckley, Jr. once said, “The best defense against usurpatory government is an assertive citizenry.”

It is time for the Christian specifically to get assertive. We can and should contact our legislatures and encourage them to stand for the biblical and historical definition of marriage. We should tell our lawmakers that it is wrong to officially recognize immoral, unhealthy, and changeable homosexual behavior. And we should pray – we should appeal to Heaven. Let us remember the words of 2 Chronicles 7:14:

If My people who are called by My name will humble themselves, and pray and seek My face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land.