An interesting reasoning that Judge Alan Kay used to uphold the law (emphasis mine).

HONOLULU (BP) — A federal court has refused to legalize gay marriage in Hawaii, ruling the issue is best addressed by the legislature and that the current law — which defines marriage as between a man and a woman — does not violate the U.S. Constitution.

The ruling by Judge Alan. C. Kay Wednesday (Aug. 8) broke a string of court losses by traditionalists on the subject of gay marriage.

At issue in Hawaii was a constitutional amendment passed by voters in 1998 giving the legislature the power to define marriage in the traditional sense, which legislators subsequently did.

A lesbian couple and a gay man filed suit in federal court last year against Hawaii officials, arguing the amendment and law violated the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the U.S. Constitution. But Kay, nominated by President Reagan, ruled the legislature had a rational interest defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

"Throughout history and societies, marriage has been connected with procreation and childrearing," Kay wrote in his 117-page decision. "… The legislature could rationally conclude that on a societal level, the institution of marriage acts to reinforce ‘the important legal and normative link between heterosexual intercourse and procreation on the one hand and family responsibilities on the other.’"

The legislature, Kay wrote, could "also rationally conclude that other things being equal, it is best for children to be raised by a parent of each sex."

"Both sides presented evidence on this issue and both sides pointed out flaws in their opponents’ evidence," he wrote of parenting. "Thus, the Court concludes this rationale is at least debatable and therefore sufficient."

The issue, Kay added, is up to the legislature.

He deferred to the legislature when the point was debatable. What’s very interesting about this is that it is essentially the reasoning Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts used to uphold ObamaCare; a decision that liberals hailed. While Roberts rewrote the law to make the individual mandate a tax (not something I agree he could or should do), he then concluded that it was within Congress’ power and deferred to them.

This is the very opposite of judicial activism, and what they’re supposed to do; judge the law and not redefine it.

Four days later, and this item is old news, but Obama coming out of the closet and no longer hiding (what we all knew was) his stance on same-sex marriage is going to have political ramifications. I daresay that was the intent. But his religious reasons for his view seem to me to be very flimsy, more of a fig leaf to try to keep goodwill with the majority of Christians and Jews who believe this is wrong.

Here are some of his reasons:

[Michelle and I] are both practicing Christians and obviously this position may be considered to put us at odds with the views of others but, you know, when we think about our faith, the thing at root that we think about is not only Christ sacrificing himself on our behalf, but it’s also the Golden Rule, you know, treat others the way you would want to be treated.

"Christ sacrificed Himself. We should treat others the way we want to be treated. Therefore, same-sex marriage is good." With that sort of "deep" theological thought, one could rationalize any number of behaviors that the Bible is rather clear on. But once more for emphasis:

Genesis 2:24 – For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.

Pretty clear to me. And again, as I have noted before,

• Every time the Bible mentions homosexuality, it is speaking against it.
• Every time the Bible mentions marriage, it is heterosexual.
• Thousands of years of Christian and Jewish thought understand this.

But for Mr. Obama, personal experience trumps all of that.

“I was sensitive to the fact that for a lot of people, the word ‘marriage’ was something that evokes very powerful traditions, religious beliefs and so forth.

“But I have to tell you that over the course of several years, as I’ve talked to friends and family and neighbors, when I think about members of my own staff who are in in­cred­ibly committed monogamous same-sex relationships, who are raising kids together. When I think about those soldiers or airmen or Marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf, and yet feel constrained even now that Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is gone because they’re not able to commit themselves in a marriage, at a certain point I’ve just concluded that for me personally, it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married.”

"Some of my best friends are gay. Therefore, same-sex marriage is a good thing." I’m sorry, but quoting the Bible is not the same as following it, especially when it says things in the most definite of terms that are diametrically opposed to what you are suggesting it says.

This may be helping Obama in the short term (he got a surge of donations soon after the pronouncement), but in the long term, this may hurt him with African-American and Latino voters. It’s time to take notice of the actual values of the man you may be voting for.

For all of my Christian friends who will be voting on this amendment today, defining marriage as one man and one woman, a couple of verses.

Genesis 2:24 (NIV) – That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.

Proverbs 14:34 (NIV) – Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin condemns any people.

Righteousness and sinfulness are indeed both personal and corporate. Please consider this.

North Carolina will be voting on an amendment to the state constitution that will define marriage as one man and one woman. It’s too bad that something so engrained in cultures worldwide must now have its obvious definition written into the overarching legal document for states, but since there are those that now wish to redefine it legally, it’s something that must be done.

In Georgia, we saw how, even though there were already laws against same-sex marriage, the same-sex marriage proponents sought to get around this by using the courts to declare the law unconstitutional. To preempt that here, a constitutional amendment was proposed and passed. Now North Carolina is doing the same thing, but those against the amendment are arguing…well, not arguing, really, just casting aspersions. Mark Duffy, writing for Buzzfeed says this:

The state already doesn’t "recognize" same-sex unions. That apparently isn’t a strong enough statement for North Carolina lawmakers.

This is not about statements or posturing. It’s because those promoting same-sex marriage have changed the battlefield from the legislature to the courts. And each time they get met on that battlefield, they whine about it and make assumptions about their opponents. These are not the actions of people appealing to your mind or reason, but to your emotions and, ironically, to hate of those they disagree with.

This is further exhibited by the commenters on the page. I noted the legal reasoning that the NC lawmakers might have, paralleling it with what I had seen here, and was immediately accused of deliberately twisting the facts. Except that the facts are historically verifiable. Nothing was twisted. Check out the comment thread. A very eye-opening read.

Flashback to 2004, when there was still a show called "Crossfire" on CNN, and when the President of the Human Right Campaign (which advocates for, among other things, same-sex marriage) was still Cheryl Jacques.

Pro-family supporters fear legalizing same-sex marriage will open doors for polygamy to continue breaking down the sanctity of marriage. The issue of polygamy, presented by many pro-family groups, is showing itself more and more as a dead end for pro-gay activists in their push for homosexual marriage to be legalized.

Tucker Carlson, host of CNN’s "Crossfire", debated with Human Rights Campaign President Cheryl Jacques on the polygamy issue. Carlson asked her why shouldn’t polygamists be able to marry and all she could say was, "I don’t approve of that."

When conservatives say that about same-sex marriage, they’re called Puritanical, or shoving their views down others’ throats, etc., etc. But it was all the willfully ignorant Jacques could come up with at the time. She couldn’t fathom the idea that by changing the definition of marriage once, others would take that and run with it for other definitions.

Willfully ignorant. And now we have this.

Kody Brown is a proud polygamist, and a relatively famous one. Now Mr. Brown, his four wives and 16 children and stepchildren are going to court to keep from being punished for it.

The family is the focus of a reality TV show, “Sister Wives,” that first appeared in 2010. Law enforcement officials in the Browns’ home state, Utah, announced soon after the show began that the family was under investigation for violating the state law prohibiting polygamy.

On Wednesday, the Browns are expected to file a lawsuit to challenge the polygamy law.

The lawsuit is not demanding that states recognize polygamous marriage. Instead, the lawsuit builds on a 2003 United States Supreme Court decision, Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down state sodomy laws as unconstitutional intrusions on the “intimate conduct” of consenting adults. It will ask the federal courts to tell states that they cannot punish polygamists for their own “intimate conduct” so long as they are not breaking other laws, like those regarding child abuse, incest or seeking multiple marriage licenses.

The same-sex-marriage-to-polygamy link was understood by the dissenting conservatives on the court in the Lawrence case.

The connection with Lawrence v. Texas, a case that broadened legal rights for gay people, is sensitive for those who have sought the right of same-sex marriage. Opponents of such unions often refer to polygamy as one of the all-but-inevitable outcomes of allowing same-sex marriage. In his dissenting opinion in the Lawrence case, Justice Antonin Scalia cited a threat to state laws “based on moral choices” against “bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality and obscenity.”

The head of the Roman Catholic Church in New York, Archbishop Timothy M. Dolan, made a similar comparison on his blog on Thursday in an essay criticizing the state’s legalization of same-sex marriage and the possible “next step,” which could be “another redefinition to justify multiple partners and infidelity.”

This linkage, hand-waved away by same-sex marriage advocates at the time, is nothing less than willful ignorance. Each step was a clear slip down a slope they denied existed. Further predictions of what will happen should not be taken lightly at all. But they will. Case in point:

Such arguments, often referred to as the “parade of horribles,” are logically flawed, said Jennifer C. Pizer, a professor at the law school at the University of California, Los Angeles, and legal director for the school’s Williams Institute, which focuses on sexual orientation law.

The questions surrounding whether same-sex couples should be allowed to marry are significantly different from those involved in criminal prosecution of multiple marriages, Ms. Pizer noted. Same-sex couples are seeking merely to participate in the existing system of family law for married couples, she said, while “you’d have to restructure the family law system in a pretty fundamental way” to recognize polygamy.

Professor Turley called the one-thing-leads-to-another arguments “a bit of a constitutional canard,” and argued that removing criminal penalties for polygamy “will take society nowhere in particular.”

Except that it is happening as we speak. This is not the first attempt at the polygamy issue, and if it fails it’s certain to not be the last. Marriage has always been defined as:

A) Two people
B) Different genders

When B has fallen, A cannot be very far behind. Beyond that, marriage will be whatever anyone wants it to mean, and thus will cease to have meaning. The social engineers will have won, but society will have lost.

I recently was a part of a rather lengthy blog comment discussion about same-sex marriage on the site of a liberal Christian. I noted that Genesis 2:24 was pretty clear what marriage was defined as, and that when the Bible mentioned marriage, it was always heterosexual. (Another commenter picked up on the idea that, even when polygamy is mentioned, it is one-man-many-women.; each of the women were married to the man, not to each other.) Every mention in history, in a parable, or even just talking about a particular married couple, it was heterosexual. There’s even a whole book (Song of Solomon) devoted to heterosexual marriage and the sexuality within it. But nothing–no press at all–on same-sex marriage.

And the mentions of homosexuality in general? Again, 100% negative. You can argue the contexts, I suppose, but ever time homosexuality is mentioned, whatever the context, it is sin. I’m willing to listen to arguments as to where homosexuality is mentioned positively, or even neutrally, but I don’t recall ever hearing it.

I find this significant. The Bible talks about marriage quite a bit, and yet nothing at all about same-sex marriage. Now, the arguments against me included the idea that, while Genesis 2:24 says what marriage is, it doesn’t say what marriage isn’t. I found this laughable, and surprisingly legalistic for someone who, I’m pretty sure, did not appreciate legalists. In this particular case, it sounded like this person required that the commandment must include fine print and enough provisos worth of a car commercial. "This command should not be construed to permit situations such as, but not limited to, marriages of minors (under the age of 18), animals, toasters (including other mechanical and/or electrical objects), and/or siblings. Tax, tag, title and dealer prep extra."

Another objection was that the Bible didn’t mention nuclear power, either, but we don’t take it as a handbook on that. Indeed,the Bible says nothing about all things nuclear, nor energy sources in general. But it does talk about marriage, a lot, and when it does, it’s all about the man and the woman.

I was also told that there were so very few verses at al that even talked about homosexuality that it wasn’t enough to really draw any concrete conclusions. This from guys who were literally ridiculing my point about 100% of the Bible talking exclusively about heterosexual marriage. Amounts only matter, it seems, in certain cases.

Anyway, that’s what the Bible has to say. Over the millennia, a lot of smart guys have looked at the issue and have come to the same conclusion.

Church history is crystal clear: Homosexual practice has been affirmed nowhere, never, by no one in the history of Christianity. . . .

Christianity is a tradition; it is a faith with a particular ethos, set of beliefs and practices handed on from generation to generation. The Christian tradition may be understood as the history of what God’s people have believed and how they have lived based upon the Word of God. This tradition is not only a collection of accepted doctrines but also a set of lifestyle expectations for a follower of Christ. One of the primary things handed down in the Christian church over the centuries is a consistent set of lifestyle ethics including specific directives about sexual behavior. The church of every generation from the time of the apostles has condemned sexual sin as unbecoming a disciple of Christ. At no point have any orthodox Christian teachers ever suggested that one’s sexual practices may deviate from biblical standards.

Concerning homosexuality there has been absolute unanimity in church history; sexual intimacy between persons of the same gender has never been recognized as legitimate behavior for a Christian. One finds no examples of orthodox teachers who suggested that homosexual activity could be acceptable in God’s sight under any circumstances. Revisionist biblical interpretations that purport to support homosexual practice are typically rooted in novel hermeneutical principles applied to Scripture, which produce bizarre interpretations of the Bible held nowhere, never, by no one.

This applies to a host of other churches and traditions, not just the orthodox ones. Ignore all of that collected wisdom at your peril. Indeed, sometimes there does need to be an overturning of established understanding (see: Martin Luther), but there had better be an extremely good Biblical foundation and argument accompanying it. The reasons I’ve seen so far trying to establish a Christian imperative for same-sex marriage could just as easily be applied to many other actions that the church considers sinful. Jesus loved the woman caught in adultery, and did not condemn here there, but told her to "go and sin no more". He called it what it was and didn’t affirm her behavior just because it was forgiven.

We should do the same. The  Christian Left will complain, but while they can come up with their own arguments, they have little (if anything) to stand on, biblically speaking. When the Bible speak of homosexuality, it is always negative, and when the Bible speaks of marriage is it always heterosexual. This is significant.

Wow.  Don Sensing offers up a philosophical discussion, but a very readable one, about what makes marriage, marriage.  It really is a very good read.  His conclusion is, in essence, that the same-sex-marriage proponents are trying to take the results of marriage and turn them into the definition of it.  But in reality, marriage is what marriage has always been; a male-female relationship.

But if you think I’ve spoiled the ending, don’t worry.  It’s getting there that is very instructive.

Read. The. Whole. Thing.

California, Florida (two blue states) and Arizona voters rejected same-sex marriage in their states.  As Tony Perkins from the Family Research Council notes, this signals that the electorate is still generally socially conservative, and that if Obama has a mandate, it’s an economic one. 

This is especially true among Obama’s big support blocs; blacks and Hispanics.  Byron York noted at the National Review Online that these constituents supported the ban 70-30 and 51-49 respectively.  The 90+ percent of African-Americans that voted for Obama, and who rightly have celebrated the election of a black man to the White House, quite apparently think this is "Change We Can Do Without"(tm).

The limbo that those who were married under the Supreme Court decision find themselves in is of their own making.  Rather than using the legislature or respecting the will of the people expressed in the last ballot initiative, they changed the battlefield.  However, they took their initial success with irrational exuberance, and when they were met on that battlefield they were defeated, leaving them in an odd situation, and forcing the California legal system into a Gordian Knot.  Once again, the "will of the people" cry we used to hear from the Left has died down to a whimper when they have an axe to grind.

California’s Proposition 8 would make "marriage" the union of one man and one woman.  It amends the state constitution, since that was the battlefield chosen by liberal judges in that state’s Supreme Court when they made a decision earlier this year.  James Taranto notes that what’s strange about this is that California already has a civil union laws that gives same-sex couples all the state-level legal benefits of marriage.  Taranto links to a story about this in the Financial Times, and then wonders, if there’s no difference in the benefits…

So the rulings were only about the meaning of the term marriage. Why is this so important? We’ll let a prominent supporter of same-sex marriage, quoted by the FT, explain:

The advertising campaign backing the proposition, launched last month, features footage of San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom speaking before supporters about gay marriage, saying "The door’s wide open now. It’s gonna happen, whether you like it or not."

The New York Times quotes from the Connecticut ruling:

"Although marriage and civil unions do embody the same legal rights under our law, they are by no means equal," Justice [Richard] Palmer wrote in the majority opinion, joined by Justices Flemming L. Norcott Jr., Joette Katz and Lubbie Harper. "The former is an institution of transcendent historical, cultural and social significance, whereas the latter is not."

The push for same-sex marriage, as distinct from civil unions, is not about tolerance or overcoming discrimination. It is about imposing a view of the "transcendent" on an unwilling public ("whether you like it or not"). If Proposition 8 passes, even supporters of same-sex marriage ought to take heart in a vote against this sort of arrogance.

This is further proof that, for the homosexual movement, "tolerance" and being left alone to do as they please is simply not enough, their words notwithstanding.  It must include active acceptance and word redefinition.  The main point of the FT article is the shock some gays have to how the polls seem to be going against them.  Hopefully, the people of California are seeing who’s trying to force their will on them.

Connecticut now has same-sex marriage due to legislative action judicial fiat.  One 4-to-3 ruling, rather than the voice of the people, has brought it to that state.  One more reason why seeking constitutional amendments to stop this isn’t some overreaction; it’s the playing field the Left is using.  You could argue, possibly correctly, that the citizens would likely vote for this anyway, but that’s not the point at all.  They should say so themselves; not have their minds read.

Now, if you believe that homosexuality is wrong, but figure that allowing homosexuals to marry each other doesn’t really affect anything, studies in Europe and the US are showing that you get more of behavior you encourage.

An accumulation of research from around the world finds that societies which endorse homosexual behavior increase the prevalence of homosexuality in those societies. The legalization of same-sex marriage—which is being considered by voters in several U.S. states—is the ultimate in societal endorsement and will result in more individuals living a homosexual lifestyle.

Extensive research from Sweden, Finland, Denmark, and the United States reveals that homosexuality is primarily environmentally induced. Specifically, social and/or family factors, as well as permissive environments which affirm homosexuality, play major environmental roles in the development of homosexual behavior.

In essence, society’s norms and, in this case, state regulations have a bigger influence on homosexual behavior than even genetics.

But first, it should be noted that although the Swedish and Finnish twin studies are among the best to date, they still have wide margins of error. In fact, the margins of error are so wide it remains entirely possible that genetic factors play no role in the development of homosexuality. That remains to be determined, but what has been resolved is that the primary factor in the development of homosexuality is environmental.

(Emphasis in original.)  Read the whole thing for further details and the conclusion.