How does the church combat the invasion of same-sex marriage?

Lawyer Liu Zhepei responded

Interview/Yang Hanjiahua

"Marriage and family are spiritual battlefields. When morality and law are separated into two parts, the former declines and the latter flourishes." Lawyer Liu Zhepei pointed out earnestly, "But in just a dozen years, homosexuals have been privately Now that it's public, same-sex marriage has gone from illegal to legal."

Lawyer Liu Zhepei responded in writing to this magazine’s exclusive interview from a legal professional perspective as follows:

Question: In the US general election on November 4, 2008, three states: California, Florida and Arizona put "restricting marriage to one man and one woman into the constitution" on their ballots. What does it mean legally if voters vote "yes"?

answer:The highest goal of homosexuals is to legalize marriage and form a family under the umbrella of the basic human rights of "equality" and "privacy" in the Constitution. By casting a "yes" vote, voters express their approval for the Constitution to stipulate that marriage can only be established between a man and a woman.

As long as the marriage relationship is clearly defined and there is no longer any ambiguity, homosexuals will not be able to apply for or obtain a marriage license, and it will be difficult to file lawsuits against administrative agencies. The judiciary will no longer have much room to interpret anti-gay parties as "discrimination." ”. Therefore, if voters succeed in amending the constitution, the legal meaning is that the ideal of legalizing same-sex marriage will be on the verge of being shattered.

Question: Why is the United States paying attention to California’s Proposition 8, waiting for the outcome of the fierce battle between the “traditional marriage” and “same-sex marriage” camps?

answer:California has the largest population in the United States and is the most progressive on many issues pursuing freedom, equality and legal rights. California often takes the lead, takes the lead, or brings common legal and moral issues in the Constitution to the forefront of decisive battles, and thus attracts much attention.

The most obvious example is that in 1975, California established the legal precedent of No-Fault Divorce based on the "individual freedom of belief, freedom of assembly and association, and the fundamental right to privacy" in the Constitution. Officially cut in two. In less than thirty years, the judiciary or legislative bodies of various states in the United States have followed suit in legislation or made precedents confirming that two adults, regardless of whether they are married or not, can choose to have an intimate relationship with each other, which means that extramarital affairs have been officially decriminalized. After that, the divorce rate in the United States increased rapidly, and families and marriages suffered great impacts and challenges due to lax laws.

For another example, in May 2008, the California Supreme Court ruled by a vote of 4 to 3 that homosexuals have the basic human right to marry. It not only extended the civil rights of homosexuals to the field of marriage, but also extended the referendum passed by voters based on the original right before 2000. 22, which states that "marriage between one man and one woman" is unconstitutional.

Thanks to the active efforts of pro-gay liberals in California, the state Legislature has been passing legislation since 1999 to confirm and expand the civil rights of gays to the extreme.

The California Domestic Partner Registration & Responsibility Act of 2003 has stipulated in detail that registered same-sex couples should enjoy the same rights, protections and benefits enjoyed by spouses in marriage. Accordingly, the four judges (majority rule) of the Supreme Court held that the state assembly represents public opinion and has made it very clear over the years that equal rights for homosexuals are granted. Voters are not allowed to create laws anymore. This means that Bill 22 is deemed to be inconsistent with the law passed by the state assembly. conflict.

After that, the two camps started a tug-of-war. By the presidential election and the decisive day of voting on Proposition 8 on November 4, 2008, it can be said that the entire basic human rights of homosexuals (against the constitution and traditional marriage) have reached the climax of attention in the United States and even the world. . Whether Proposition 8 is passed or not will determine whether homosexuals in the future can legally obtain a marriage license, start a family, and enjoy the full benefits of a family composed of a man and a woman.

▲Chinese Christians who support Proposition 8 use newspapers, television, and radio to resist the overwhelming media offensive from gay groups. The picture shows a popular large advertisement in a Chinese newspaper.

Question: Can marriage regulations be changed after the state constitution enacts them? In other words, is this victory for the traditional marriage camp in California lasting?

answer:At this moment, gay groups are actively challenging the legality of Proposition 8 through more than 40 California senators and representatives, as well as the city councilors of San Francisco, Los Angeles and Santa Clara. The case is now before the California Supreme Court, and a final decision is expected in a few months. There are two main points of debate:

1. The people of California cannot amend the constitution to deprive homosexuals of their basic civil rights (a substantive legal argument).

2. According to Article 18 of the California Constitution and related procedural laws, if the bill to amend the California Constitution only adds provisions that are not originally included in the Constitution, voters can submit it to a referendum after exceeding the number of 8% co-signers. A vote is called an amendment. However, if the content of the constitutional amendment involves amending the provisions of the original constitution, or depriving the basic rights granted by the constitution, it is called a revision. In this case, the bill must be passed by 2/3 of the senators and representatives of the state assembly in advance. Then submit it to a referendum (a procedural law argument). Homosexuals believe that Proposition 8 is an amendment, not an addition. It has not been proposed by the state assembly, and there are issues with fair process (flawed asylum).

I personally believe that civil rights and marriage belong to different categories. Homosexuals have obtained almost all the rights within the scope of civil rights. It is inappropriate to cross the line and infringe on traditional marriage beliefs. Otherwise, wouldn't it be equivalent to discrimination against the majority by a minority? Although the provisions of the Constitution never explicitly stipulate that marriage is between a man and a woman, it is implicitly embedded in it. It has existed since ancient times, is recognized by all historical and civilized societies, and is consistent with the laws of nature. The Constitution has never recognized same-sex marriage. Moreover, the drafters of the Constitution would not have been aware of the issue of homosexuality two hundred years ago. Proposition 8 only clearly defined the original marriage between men and women. There was no same-sex marriage in the first place, and there was no talk of rights. If the bill is deprived, the content of the bill should be an addition rather than an amendment. It does not involve tampering with the basic rights of homosexuals, and there is no need to propose it through the state assembly.

▲During the general election, Christians published advertisements in Chinese newspapers to make a deafening voice for the truth about marriage and family.

Q: In light of the relentless offensive by homosexuals, what are your hopes for the church and the children of God?

answer:In less than ten years, many of the deeply affected children in California have grown up, and the number of voters supporting "marriage between one man and one woman" has dropped from 62% on Referendum 22 in 2000 to 52% on election day in 2008. In just six months after the California Supreme Court ruled in May 2008 that gays have the basic right to marry, counties and cities have issued approximately 18,000 gay marriage certificates.

In addition to recognizing the rules of the legal game, God's children must also realize that the reason why homosexuality has evolved to this point is actually because the party who agrees with "marriage between one man and one woman" has become unstable and has lost its testimony. Under the attack of internal and external troubles, it cannot bring a healthy, positive and attractive impact to society or the next generation.

Looking around at those families with a divorce rate exceeding 50%, there are many absentee parents and all kinds of bisex parents who have failed in their duties, which is in sharp contrast to those same-sex couples who are deliberately created to love each other. This makes it impossible for administrative agencies to present "strong" government interests or evidence to defend marriage in court, and it is also difficult to convince the court: why not issuing marriage licenses to gay couples does not constitute discrimination?

As same-sex marriage is gradually loosened, and people who are disappointed with traditional marriage are pushing for a way out, we will find that same-sex marriage will become more and more common. This will seriously affect our family education, children's ideas, and even their behavioral development. Therefore, God’s children should work together on marriage and family, and despite the many difficulties and challenges, they should still build a happy marriage and family according to God’s will.

Let the world see that the marriage system and harmonious families created by God are not mirages, but goals that everyone can aspire to and pursue.

Interviewee profile

Lawyer Liu Zhepei: A practicing attorney in California. Juris Doctor (JD) from Glendale University; obtained Master of Laws (LLM) degree from Pepperdine University School of Law, specializing in conflict management and mediation. Currently serving as a mediator at the Los Angeles Superior Court.