Thomas More Law Center Condemns California Supreme Court’s Mandate of Homosexual Marriages

Thomas More Law Center ^ | May 15, 2008 | staff

[kellynla]

ANN ARBOR, MI – The Thomas More Law Center harshly condemned today’s 4-3 ruling of the California Supreme Court, holding that the California Constitution requires recognition of same-sex marriages, in an unprecedented overturning of a citizen initiative statute protecting traditional marriage. The three dissenters on the panel argued that the issue should have been left to the political process.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center commented, “This outrageous ruling shows how our most cherished institutions are being destroyed by the tyrannical actions of an out-of-control judiciary. The California Supreme Court took judicial activism to a whole new level. When four judges can overturn the vote of the people protecting marriage, the Constitution’s guarantee of a Republican form of government becomes meaningless. This battle is not over.”

Charles LiMandri, the Thomas More Law Center’s West Coast Director, has been named the General Counsel to the “National Organization for Marriage.” This is the organization spearheading the California ballot initiative to amend the California state constitution to define marriage between one man and one woman only. This ballot initiative recently submitted well over the required number of signatures to be placed on the November ballot.

Charles LiMandri stated, “Thanks to the tireless efforts of the ‘National Organization for Marriage, ’ and the many groups that have supported it, like the Thomas More Law Center, the courts will not have the final say on marriage in California — the people will in November.”

The Thomas More Law Center is in discussion with Charles LiMandri to determine what options are available in the meantime. Richard Thompson commented, “There is the possibility that we may ask for a stay in the court’s ruling considering that between now and November it would be legal in California for same-sex couples to marry, and come November – if the amendment passes – it would be unconstitutional again.”

The Thomas More Law Center drafted Michigan’s constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman, which was recently upheld by the Michigan Supreme Court.

[DoughtyOne]

I just wish we had a governor with nads after ten years of not having one. Maybe next time.

[proudpapa]

These are the kind of justices that Obama will put on the Supreme Court.

But go ahead, FRiends and vote third party or stay home. There is no reason to back a moderate like McCain.

[jazusamo]

Good for Richard Thompson for speaking out, he’s exactly right.

[goldstategop]

The people of California will have the final say in November. Liberals just handed their opponents the issue they were looking for. Their contempt for people's values is going to backfire on them.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[informavoracious]

Ahnold had previously said it was an issue for the PEOPLE to decide. Now he’s back pedalling and saying he’ll support the judges’ decision.

[Bernard Marx]

Maybe next time.

Jerry Brown's in the bullpen warming up to render this state's coup de grace (if SchwarzenKennedy doesn't beat him to it). Who have we got?

[Technogeeb]

These are the kind of justices that Obama will put on the Supreme Court.

They are also the kind of justices that McCain will put on the Supreme Court. Or are you unaware that he voted for Ruth Bader Ginsburg?

There is no reason to back a moderate like McCain.

Certainly not if the issue is the kinds of Justices he'll appoint.

[DoughtyOne]

It’s just like Davis’ decision not to appeal the proposition that defunded programs to illegal immigrants, when it was overturned.

These guys are enemies of the public.

[elpadre]

this is why a Constitutional amendment is necessary - come on Congress, get the ball rolling!!

[DoughtyOne]

I read an article a month or so ago that talked about the ex-CEO of EBay. Evidently she has been befriended by a leading Republican and may run for governor herself. Her political history has been described as funding leftist political candidates.

The Republican? John McCain.

Thank goodness we have the California Republican leadership to fall back on. Oh wait, they gave us Arnold. Well, sure glad we have the RNC to fall back on. Oh wait, they can’t buck McCain, their shining TOP DOG.

We’re in a world of hurt.

[Dilbert San Diego]

This issue had been in the background for a few years, as state courts in a few states had upheld the traditional definition of marriage as being constitutional in those states, after Mass. has ruled for same-sex marriage. This throws gasoline on the fire of the marriage issue again.

Democrats shut down the Mass. legislature which was to have allowed a vote on an amendment in Mass. on marriage for this year. They used parliamentary procedure to adjourn the legislature without approving it for a vote of the people in Mass. The Democrats reasoning was that they didn’t want a debate about same sex marriage in an election year. And by adjourning, the Mass. legislature put it off until a future date.

Well, they now have their election year debate about same sex marriage. Efforts had been underway to vote in Calif. in November on the definition of marriage. Efforts are also underway in Florida and Arizona for this year’s general election.

[Morgana]

If California wanted to succeed from the Union, I would have not object.

[Texas4ever]

WHEN WILL CONSERVATIVE AMERICANS SAY “ENOUGH”?

Stop agologizing and STAND FOR YOUR RIGHT?

THE LEFT DOES IT WELL AND IN FORCE!!!!

THE CHURCH IS TOO BUSY MAKING MONEY!!!!!!

sorry for yelling, but I am sooooo mad!

[Dilbert San Diego]

It gets me that some say these gay marriage court cases are like Brown vs. Board of Education regarding school segregation.

I would point out that the Brown decision was unanimous, whereas all of the gay marriage cases are divided. Calif was a 4-3 vote, Mass. was a 4-3 vote, and other states courts were divided in upholding traditional marriage. These splits reveal that there is no clear consensus or guideline in the law on the issue.

A future U.S. Supreme Court will decide it. We’ll either have 50 state same sex marriage, or a patchwork of different state laws on the subject.

[j. earl carter]

You secessfully butcher the English language in a way most amusing.

[Clintonfatigued]

If you set moral objections aside, this is a bad ruling from a Constitutional point of view. If there had ever bene a Constitutional right to marry someone of the same gender, it would have been already been written there. This is lawmaking by judicial fiat, four judges who think their law degrees and black robes give them the right to impose their views on an unwilling public because they think they’re so much smarter than everybody else.

[Doc91678]

Here we go again. Judges making laws from the bench without benefit of the PEOPLE’s views considered.Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution is there any mention that a man has the right to marry a man, or the right of a woman to marry another woman. The Bible calls such unions an abomination and a sin against God's laws.

[Doc91678]

Here we go again. Judges making laws from the bench without benefit of the PEOPLE’s views considered.Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution is there any mention that a man has the right to marry a man, or the right of a woman to marry another woman. The Bible calls such unions an abomination and a sin against God's laws.

[muleskinner]

Actually, Arnold said he would also abide by a court decison.

[tbw2]

I guess the Conan bit WAS an act.

[yankeedame]

If you set moral objections aside, this is a bad ruling from a Constitutional point of view. If there had ever been a Constitutional right to marry someone of the same gender, it would have been already been written there. This is lawmaking by judicial fiat, four judges who think their law degrees and black robes give them the right to impose their views on an unwilling public because they think they’re so much smarter than everybody else.

Amen, fellow Freeper, amen! The job of the judiciary is to decide whether something is in keeping with the Constitution or not. If it isn't, the affair is thrown back to the legislative body with "Sorry. No go. Try (re)writing it another way, then we'll see."

It's function is not to decide, "Yes (or No) regarding this case. And now how's we're ordering you to do it."

[kellynla]

ping

[muleskinner]

Ultra Cliff Notes version of this ruling: “They” use the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. It is for equal application of the laws. The State Supreme Court decided domestic partnership laws don’t protect certain people as well as marriage laws.

[purpleraine]

Well you have a problem with that argument. I think five of the judges were there from the Wilson and Duke administrations.

[Paleo Conservative]

Do you think this issue could put California in play in the Electoral College?

[NYer]

When four judges can overturn the vote of the people protecting marriage, the Constitution’s guarantee of a Republican form of government becomes meaningless. This battle is not over

Ecclesiastes
Chapter 1

1

¹ The words of David's son, Qoheleth, king in Jerusalem:

2

² Vanity of vanities, says Qoheleth, vanity of vanities! All things are vanity!

3

³ What profit has man from all the labor which he toils at under the sun?

4

One generation passes and another comes, but the world forever stays.

5

The sun rises and the sun goes down; then it presses on to the place where it rises.

6

Blowing now toward the south, then toward the north, the wind turns again and again, resuming its rounds.

7

All rivers go to the sea, yet never does the sea become full. To the place where they go, the rivers keep on going.

8

⁴ All speech is labored; there is nothing man can say. The eye is not satisfied with seeing nor is the ear filled with hearing.

9

What has been, that will be; what has been done, that will be done. Nothing is new under the sun.

10

Even the thing of which we say, "See, this is new!" has already existed in the ages that preceded us.

11

⁵ There is no remembrance of the men of old; nor of those to come will there be any remembrance among those who come after them.

---

IOW - everything old is new again. This paganistic practice existed in all the great empires - Rome - Athens - etc. Each time society embraced this foolishness, it collapsed. Those who do not learn from history are forced to repeat it.

Catholic Ping List
Please freepmail me if you want on/off this list

[Ransomed]

I am shocked. Who could ever imagine the gubberment messing up marriage. Gubberment does so well at everything else...

Freegards

[Chode]

filthy disease ridden queers strike again...

[iowamark]

You need to do some research on Meg Whitman. She is hardly a leftist.

http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/index.php

[NYer]

We’re in a world of hurt.

This is one truly ugly election. Hillary is pro-death; Obama takes it a step futher in favor of infanticide and McCain will keep us in the war. He is still the least threatening of all the candidates. Should he be elected, we can expect little will be accomplished as Pelosi and her followers try to block any legislation he may try to pass. With him, we can buy 4 more years.

Hey, what about Jindhal (sp?)?

[annalex]

It is my biggest regret as a Freeper that I opposed Patrick Buchanan’s candidacy in 2000. It was doomed anyway, of course, but it was quite possibly the last time for a conservative to support a major politician in earnest.

[B-Chan]

My wife, to her credit, voted for Buchanan that year.

PJB is wrong about some things. He is right about a great many more. Too bad such men are unelectable under our republican system of government.

We are so boned.

[Bernard Marx]

Here's the tragedy: 3 of the 4 CA Supremes who voted for the Gay Special Rights decision were Republican appointments. Apparently "Republicans" no longer believe in the Republican form of government, where the people have the final say.

Yesterday's devastating Polar Bear announcement that will stop Alaskan oil development forever was made by a "conservative Republican" Interior Secretary serving a "Republican" President, enforcing a law signed into being by another "Republican" President.

The Stupid Party's circular firing squad has finally done its job. There is no longer any point in voting. Tyrants in black judicial robes run this country. One vote on the Court trumped a legal, binding election in CA. What a travesty!

[Doe Eyes]

Apparently "Republicans" no longer believe in the Republican form of government, where the people have the final say.

Interesting interpretation of what a Republic is.

[Thorin]

>>>>It is my biggest regret as a Freeper that I opposed Patrick Buchanan’s candidacy in 2000.

But at least you know better now. The tragedy is that so many do not.

[the invisib1e hand]

When the Rotweiler bears his teeth, the puppies do, too.

[Bernard Marx]

Okay, explain it to me. My understanding of a Democratic Republic involves duly elected representatives making laws for the people. The lawmakers are not necessarily bound to faithfully "represent" the wishes of the people who elected them, being free to bring their best judgment to bear on such decisions.

BUT when the people speak on a ballot initiative (plebiscite?) aren't their decisions to be honored? The people of CA passed Prop. 187 which, after years of dilatory legal mumbo jumbo, was wrongly declared unconstitutional by a federal judge. Gray Davis killed it forever by refusing to file an appeal.

Now our black-robed Masters have decided by a single vote that the will of the people should again be ignored. I'm interested in your explanation of why that should be.

[bulldozer]

[this is why a Constitutional amendment is necessary - come on Congress, get the ball rolling!!]

I think it is a pure pipe dream if the do-nothing congress will ever get the ball rolling.

[dr huer]

The gay marriage issue is a dictionary problem. When two persons of the same sex manipulate each others genitals for sexual gratification they have no intention of making babies. Perhaps from envy they demand the social recognition that married couples get. If the pairing is friendly and extended they want married privileges. Perhaps they deserve some the benefits like health care coverage on one partners job health plan. But lets fix the dictionary and call it garriage, and say they are garried. So when legislators pass laws they can choose to clearly express which legal benefit and responsibility goes to each type of union.

[DoughtyOne]

I did support Pat in 2000. It was before he went bonkers to the point that I could no longer support him.

He had some problems in 2000, but I could see where we were headed and I wanted to avoid it. Well we didn’t avoid it. We settled for Bush and here we are.

I have my problems with Buchanan. I know it wouldn’t have been all upside. It sure hasn’t been all upside with Bush either.

Well, here we are. Stuck in this mess.

I appreciate your comments. IMO, the last Conservative I vote for was Reagan.

[DoughtyOne]

Bernard, you express a very real problem with the Republican party. It keeps devising ways to get liberals elected, and appointed by the winners.

That's the massive problem that McCain presents. If he is elected who is going to run from the right in the near future? He will keep the RNC in line and at the state level they'll force the locals to toe the line.

McCain is a disaster in the making. Just think of his appointments. Evidently nobody has. He votes for Ginsberg and everyone thinks he's going to appoint Conservatives. Brother! His cabinet is going to remind me of the old Munster television show.

Clinton's crew reminded us of a circus and McCain will remind us of a morgue. Well somebody has to embalm the Republican party before the burial.

[dmanLA]

Destruction of the family is the goal.

What happens when the family structure is destroyed? Dependence. What/who is there to ‘save’ them? Government/politicians.

Big government scheme and both parties are in on it.

[proudpapa]

The U.S. Senate confirmed Ruth bader Ginsburg by a 96 to 3 vote.

I would have been shocked if McCain had been one of the three.

As I recall, there was a lot of chat at the time that it seemed unfair that only one woman was on the court when over 50% of our population is female.

And just because someone votes to confirm, doesn’t mean that they will appoint that kind of justice.

[Technogeeb]

The U.S. Senate confirmed Ruth bader Ginsburg by a 96 to 3 vote.
I would have been shocked if McCain had been one of the three.

Because you know in your heart that he's a RINO that does whatever it takes to make his Democratic allies happy?

As I recall, there was a lot of chat at the time that it seemed unfair that only one woman was on the court when over 50% of our population is female.

Wise government isn't based on what is "fair". The very fact that some Senators might have made a decision based on such nonsense just proves how incompetent they are to hold office.

And just because someone votes to confirm, doesn’t mean that they will appoint that kind of justice.

Past acts are generally indicative of future actions. Sure, he says NOW that he would appoint conservative candidates, but Hillary and Obama are running as "pro-gun" candidates now too. If we are to base the decision on campaign rhetoric instead of historical data, Hillary seems to be the most conservative choice available.

[proudpapa]

McCain has a lifetime ACU rating of 80.
Hillary has an ACU rating hovering around 10.

But somehow she’s more conservative? Your comments leave me wondering who on these boards is working for the DNC?

[proudpapa]

McCain has a lifetime ACU rating of 80.
Hillary has an ACU rating hovering around 10.

But somehow she’s more conservative? Your comments leave me wondering who on these boards is working for the DNC?

[Technogeeb]

McCain has a lifetime ACU rating of 80.

And a rating in 2006 of 65.

Hillary has an ACU rating hovering around 10.
But somehow she’s more conservative?

Of course not; and that's the whole point. You are trying to judge McCain by what he is saying now in the campaign, instead of what he has done in the past. The example of Hillary simply proves how your logic is faulty.

Your comments leave me wondering who on these boards is working for the DNC?

Considering the high praise of some people for McCain, I can't help but to have similar thoughts. The fact is that McCain holds a lot of beliefs that are simply leftist. Some things he believes in are just plain stupid (like his recent carbon credit scheme). His past actions (such as CFR) prove that he isn't willing to perform the primary function of President to uphold and defend the Constitution.

A pragmatist might feel that we must vote for him anyway, simply because the alternative (an authoritarian Hillary or communist Obama) is even worse. Perhaps that is true. But no real conservative can make a legitimate claim that McCain is actually a good candidate for the conservative cause; yet that is exactly what a lot of people on this board have been doing since he emerged as the front runner.

Anyone who actually prefers McCain as the Republican candidate, rather than merely tolerating him as the lesser of the available evils, isn't much of a conservative.

[proudpapa]

I believe strongly in voting for the most conservative candidate who has a chance to win.

This year it is McCain.

Two big issues for me are judges and the military. The next president will probably replace JP Stevens and RB Ginsburg on the SC.

I suspect McCain will give us moderate justices, Obama will give us justices like Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

I trust McCain, hands down, to be CiC of our military.

[Technogeeb]

I believe strongly in voting for the most conservative candidate who has a chance to win.

That is a reasonable position. But consider the consequences of that from a game theory perspective. It means that logically, assuming the majority of the electorate adopt a similar strategy, any candidate trying to win the presidency should try to adopt positions that are as leftist as possible without quite being as far to the left as other candidates in the race. The inevitable result of such a strategy is creeping socialism.

Is that really your strategy? For example, if McCain dropped out of the race and the only choice was between Obama and Hillary, would you vote for Hillary?

Similarly, if McCain dropped out and the only choices were between Obama and some slightly more reasonable 3rd party candidate (libertarian or constitution party) who didn't "have a chance to win", would you really vote for Obama just because the other candidates "can't win".

I suspect McCain will give us moderate justices, Obama will give us justices like Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Again, that doesn't seem to be a reasonable suspicion, considering the fact that McCain has already cast a vote in favor of Ruth Bader Ginsburg.