IN THEORY:

Last week the California Supreme Court handed down a historic ruling legalizing same-sex marriage. Some are striving to ban gay marriage in November. Do you think voters should amend the Constitution to prohibit gay marriage?

California voters should prohibit same-sex marriage, which the Scriptures define as between a man and woman. Jesus stated, “God made them male and female, and said, for this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife.” (Matthew 19:4,5).

Straight marriage is the will of not only God, but also the people of California. In March of 2000, 61% of California voters backed Proposition 22, which mandated marriage to be between a man and woman.

Four dissenting votes should not have the power to override the will of God and the people when there is no constitutional right to same-sex marriage. As far as a constitutional prohibition against discrimination, the current domestic partner laws already prohibit discrimination.

The California Supreme Court’s ruling is not a legitimate nullification of an unconstitutional law, but rather an attempt by four liberal judges to redefine the biblical and historical definition of marriage, which is out of their jurisdiction.

Pastor Dwight Tomlinson

Liberty Baptist Church

Newport Beach

I am optimistic that Californians will vote against amendments brought primarily by those who believe homosexuality is a sin or a defect. These views should not guide public policy.

The “sanctity of marriage” is best protected by teaching the values of commitment, love, sacrifice and generosity, rather than by checking crotches to be sure the applicants for a license are “one man and one woman.”

Not all religious groups are opposed to gay marriage. For example, The United Church of Christ, Unitarian Universalism, Reform Judaism and Zen Buddhism permit gay marriage.

The California Supreme Court has clarified that gay marriage is legal. I hope voters will support the rights of their gay and lesbian family, neighbors, friends and coworkers to take the same joyful and meaningful step in life as they have.

The Rev. Deborah Barrett

Zen Center of Orange County, Costa Mesa

From the time of Adam and Eve, marriage has been understood as between one man and one woman. California voters in 2000 passed the California Defense of Marriage Act, but their will is being overruled. The judges, going against divine and natural law, consider the opposite-sex requirement as an unconstitutional infringement on “the right of an individual to establish a legally recognized family with the person of one’s choice.” One wonders what types of “marriages” seen as taboo today might be normalized by future judges.

Voters must again reinforce our traditional understanding of marriage and family for the future of our state and nation. The proposed Constitutional Amendment would prevent judges from tampering with the tradition of marriage by attempting to redefine it.

Father Stephen Doktorczyk

St. Joachim Church

Costa Mesa

I don’t have much to say about gay marriage. Gays should have the rights married couples have, but I don’t see why it has to be called marriage.

Civil unions should be enough. France has had for some time some kind of civil union ceremony that is used by gay and straight couples. The big pompous church ceremonies for any marriage seem a bit absurd, especially since about half of all marriages end in divorce.

Jerry Parks

Member, Humanist Assn. of Orange County