So the decision has been handed down. Another judge has decided that the people do not have the right to do what they have said they want to do. And, I must confess, I actually do believe that there is a higher source of right and wrong which must inform even our right to decide what we want to do, let alone do it. For those of you who are completely lost right now, I am referring to the decision today to declare unconstitutional a constitutional amendment passed in California outlawing same-sex marriage. You may recall that this is the second time that the people of the state of California have voted to restrict marriage to a man and an woman. The first time they were told that it was unconstitutional, so the second time they made it a constitutional amendment. Now it appears, even this may not be enough. The reason? The judge decided that marriage is a civil right. Civil rights are generally considered to be those rights guaranteed by the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments of the constitution, including the right to enter into contracts and to equal protection under the law. Now, if this is a correct definition, and it seems as good as any to me, then the only way I can see that marriage would fall into this category is either to construe marriage as a contract, or to make it a question of equal protection. But be careful! Because if marriage is nothing more than a contract, then civil unions would qualify, and they are already legal in California. But further, if marriage is nothing more than an contract, then people will, indeed must, be allowed to enter into any marriage contract they desire, including multiple marriages. Now I know that many think this won't happen, but it already does in many societies. Some already think this ought to be allowed. The real problem here, though, is the question of where these "rights" come from. Our founders recognized that one could not assert rights based on personal desire. And they certainly disagreed with the idea that one only has the rights granted by the government. The only justification or source they could find to assert rights not granted by the government, but not based on personal desire, was when those rights were firmly grounded in "nature's God." Now, perhaps there are many who are comfortable with equating God's will with their own feelings. I am not. I know the heart of man too well. Without a revelation, there is no way that anyone can claim to know God's will and expect anyone else to agree with them. We must have an external source we can all go to. Historically, that source has been the Bible in our country. Our founders, and even Supreme Court Justices had no problem with this until the last few generations. This is one more example of how our country has set itself adrift on a sea of relativism. That may be exactly what the majority wants. If they do, then it will happen. But we who know the one true God and trust in His Son and His Word know better. And we must insist on living according to that revelation. In the end we cannot stop same-sex marriage, or multiple marriage, or any other number of things forbidden by God's Word from being adopted by our society. But we must insist on following God's will in our own lives and communities. But don't be surprised if sometime in the not so distant future the insistence on doing so results in penalties. That has not only been the way of the world for most of history, but still is in major parts of the world today. Our freedom from persecution in the US has been a welcome respite from the norm in human history. We ought not to be surprised if it is coming to an end.

Pastor Ken