Want to learn how to lie with a 'straight' face?

...then take notes from Tony Perkins:



Civil Rights are not a matter of "majority rule", they are "inalienable". In who's reality should civil rights be eliminated through popular vote? What do you think would have happened if the actions passed through the Civil Rights movement were to have been voted on?

California made history last week, to be sure, but not the kind of history we like and can be proud of and certainly not the kind of history we're known for. In 1948, California led the nation by becoming the first state to strike down bans on interracial marriage. In the Perez v Sharp decision that found marriage to be a fundamental right, the state Supreme court stated "the right to marry is the right to join in marriage with the person of one's choice" (emphasis added). Nearly 20 years later, the United States Supreme Court agreed that marriage was a "basic civil right" when it struck down anti-miscegenation laws all across the country.

Last Tuesday a very narrow majority of voters decided to make history again: California is now the first state in the nation to take away a currently existing civil right from a group of citizens. This national embarrassment by way of constitutional amendment is made all the more painful and unjust by the manner in which it was passed: the subjection of individual rights to a popular vote. [Prop 8 Makes Wrong Kind of History]

The ruling by the California Supreme Court earlier this year that sparked the signature campaign placing Prop 8 on the ballot spoke of the "overarching values of equality and human freedom," the "fundamental right" of marriage, the importance of giving same-sex unions "equal dignity and respect," and the constitutional obligation of the court "to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority." I've been wanting to get to this story for some time now and want to be clear that I am NOT here to make a theological statement. This is not a religious issue, but a constitutional one, and the constitution does not allow for this kind of infringement. The church can determine who it shall and shall not marry and God can decide who's bonds are held in His eyes, but the State should be in no business of withholding a minority's rights in accordance with fluctuating public opinion. The truth is not a democracy. The truth is not determined by a majority vote (Especially not 51 to 49). If anyone should know this it should be Christians. Congratulations to the Church for leading yet another movement in American history that will be on the wrong side of history.