A  very important case is currently being heard in California. It concerns the legality of Proposition 8 which Californians voted in favour of in November 2008. Proposition 8 defines marriage as being between a man and a woman.

Opponents of Prop 8 insist the vote was illegal because it violates the 'right' of two people of the same sex to 'marry' one another. The case is very likely to end up in the US Supreme Court which will either leave it up to the individual states to decide whether or not to legalise same-sex marriage, or else it will do a 'Roe v Wade', that is, impose gay marriage across the land as that decision imposed abortion across the land.

At present opponents of Prop 8 are being heard in court and already they are producing a completely relativistic view of both marriage and parenthood. The definition of marriage, they insist with very considerable exaggeration, has changed enormously across time and place meaning the definition can now be changed to include two men or women.

If they win this argument, it will mean that marriage has no essential element without which marriage is not marriage. If heterosexuality as an essential element goes out the window, then why not usher in polygamy, for example?

In addition, they say, children don't need or have a right to a mother and father. All they need is loving parents.

Futhermore, they claim, Oopponents of gay marriage are motivated only to by prejudice.

In a rather sinister development, yesterday opponents of Prop 8 read out a statement on homosexuality from the Southern Baptist Convention, and another from a Vatican document on homosexuality. Both statements summarise the standard Christian view of homosexuality. Both statements were described as examples of prejudice with no basis in either reality or reason.

This trial demonstrates once again what is at stake in this debate. It is not simply about the 'right' of a man to 'marry' another man, or a woman another woman. It is about the definition of marriage. It about about a child's right to a mother and father. It is about the freedom to believe that homosexual acts are wrong. It is about religious freedom. It is about the right of religious believers to declare what they believe about homosexual acts without being denounced as bigots and the law used against them.

For a  very good summary of, and comment on, yesterday's proceedings please click here http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/BPnews.asp?ID=32038