Skip to comments.California High Court Overrules People – Legalizes Gay “Marriage”
Posted on 05/15/2008 3:25:08 PM PDT by Signalman
As over 1.1 million signatures are being validated for the qualification of constitutional marriage amendment for the November 2008 ballot, the California Supreme Court today overturned Proposition 22, the initiative passed in 2000 by more than 61% of Californias voters. The Court declared a right to same-sex marriage in direct opposition to the definition of marriage as only between a man and a woman, established by Proposition 22.
In the majority decision authored by Chief Justice Ronald George, he wrote an individuals sexual orientation like a persons race or gender does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights.
"The Courts rationale for its decision should prompt outrage from the majority of Californias citizens, said Ron Prentice, chairman of the ProtectMarriage.com coalition. The will of the people has been completely undermined by four individuals. In November, the people will have an opportunity to overrule the Courts decision by passing a constitutional amendment and Californias voters must respond by voting, concluded Prentice.
ProtectMarriage.com is a coalition of grassroots organizations, churches and voters, formed in order to place a constitutional amendment on the November 2008 ballot. The Supreme Courts ruling coincides with the submission of 1.1 million signatures to Californias 58 counties. Known as the California Marriage Protection Act, the initiatives signatures are now undergoing a review for validation. Based on the current projection of valid signatures, it appears the initiative will qualify for the ballot.
In a dissenting opinion, Justice Marvin Baxter stated, marriage is, as it always has been, the right of a woman and an unrelated man to marry each other. Baxter added there is no deeply rooted tradition of same-sex marriage, in the nation or in this state. Concurring, Prentice said, Since time began, marriage between a man and a woman has served children and societies best. Today, the California Supreme Court dishonored marriages tradition and historic purposes, as well as the will of the people.
The Courts ruling will take effect in 30 days, unless a stay is requested. It is likely that legal representation for ProtectMarriage.com will seek a stay in order to allow the people to vote on the constitutional amendment in November.
No sweat, there will be a backlash and the people pushing this activism will soon be in a worse place than when they began.
Only to be RE-OVERTURNED again?
It ain’t “gay” (having or showing a merry, lively mood) nor is it “marriage (Matthew 19:4 - 6).
The vote in November would be on a constitutional amendment, so it couldn’t be overturned by a court.
Next step — legalized marriage between a man and a man’s best friend. Woof!
Well I hope you have more luck than we here in Mass. did. Our legislature wouldn’t allow the question to even be placed on the ballot despite having gathered the largest number of signatures for any petition in the state’s history.
True. Also, the Dems. in Sacramento have tried to pass a same sex marriage law twice, but Arnold S. vetoed it. Odds are the next Dem. governor of Calif. would have signed such a law, so they might have gotten this legislatively eventually. They have thrown gasoline on the fire of activist judges, overturning laws, overturning the will of the people, and all that could have been avoided.
From Massachusetts to California, the black-robed tyrants
have eliminated the role of the citizen’s votes.
Yep, I heard the legislature in Mass. adjourned rather than deal with it. They didn’t want a gay marriage debate in an election year. Well, they got it anyway, just in a different state.
I so desperately want a polygamist, necrophile, zoophile, and a brother/sister to petition the state for marriage licenses.
What possible objections could there be to these unions?
Sometimes the extremes are needed to make the point.
Sickening... to think we have NO SAY!!!!
This decision may be the worst nightmare for the libs. If McCain plays it smart and gives his full support to the amendment, he could win CA.
To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
The legislature has no say in the putting of propositions and initiatives on the California ballot, which is the beauty of the system here. They would NEVER have passed Proposition 13, which requires that any new taxes must be submitted to voters, must pass by 2/3rds majority, and caps property taxes in all counties at 1%.
Although at times it can be a burden. There was one election where I believe we had something like 28 propositions on the ballot - essentially doing the legislature’s job for them.
Sadly, this is the only way the “enlightened” can pass their agenda. Activist courts are truly the worst.
Unlike Mass., the proposition does not need Legislature approval. It needs the Secretary of State to certify that it has sufficient voter signatures and that its wording complies with the state’s requirements on propositions which usually means the proposition itself covers only one subject. In the event, the Sec’y of State finds some reason to throw it out, that problem will be corrected, new signatures will be secured, and it will go on the next statewide election ballot. Presuming the propostion makes it on the ballot, it will win by a very wide margin.
This all came about because that slime ball of a mayor in SF, Gavin Newsom, forced it into the courts by violating current state marriage license laws. If you do not remember Newsom, he is the piece of work, who slept with the wife of his election campaign manager - one of his best friends. How’s that for a nice guy?
And, at the federal level, Obama supports repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, though he says he is against full same sex marriage. He prefers the civil union designation, but you would have to ask why would anyone want to repeal the federal law defining marriage, unless you want to open the door for the courts to re-define it?
“In the majority decision authored by Chief Justice Ronald George, he wrote an individuals sexual orientation like a persons race or gender does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights. “
Whole cloth. So now a purely chosen thing like deviant sex is analogous to gender or race? Who says? What is the basis of this shift after 5000 years history and precedent? The fall is coming at this nation like a bullet train.