Posted on 05/17/2008 4:32:34 AM PDT by kindred
I was a Californian for 40 years, so I have to ask my former fellow citizens: Are you going to sit by and do nothing while four black-robed despots take away your right to govern yourselves?
By one vote, the California Supreme Court on Thursday rejected the expressed will of Californians to limit marriage to a man and a woman.
In 2000, a 61.4 percent majority of Californians passed Proposition 22, which limited marriage to a man and a woman and precluded California's recognition of same-sex "marriages" consummated elsewhere. In a decision derided by a dissenting California justice as "legal jujitsu," the Supreme Court majority held that the ban on same-sex marriage is an infringement of the fundamental state constitutional right to marry.
California is now the second state after Massachusetts where homosexuals will be allowed to "marry." But unlike Massachusetts, California has no law that prohibits homosexual couples living in states that don't recognize same-sex "marriage" from marrying in the Golden State. The California Supreme Court has opened the door to a legal battle royal across the nation. Homosexual couples will flock to California to marry, return to their home states, and file lawsuits to force the recognition of their Land of Fruits and Nuts marriages — and the destruction of the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act.
According to the California court majority, the state's same-sex marriage ban violates the equal protection clause of the California Constitution because it discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation, which the majority declared "a suspect classification" akin to race, sex and religion. In Re Marriage Cases, S147999.
The 4-3 decision, written by Chief Justice Ronald M. George, rules that even though California's domestic partnership (DP) laws give same-sex partners "all of the significant legal rights and obligations traditionally associated under state law with the institution of marriage," the DP scheme violates the California Constitution because of its "failure to designate the official relationship of same-sex couples as marriage." George writes:
In light of all of these circumstances, we conclude that retention of the traditional definition of marriage does not constitute a state interest sufficiently compelling, under the strict scrutiny equal protection standard, to justify withholding that status from same-sex couples. Accordingly, insofar as the provisions of sections 300 and 308.5 draw a distinction between opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples and exclude the latter from access to the designation of marriage, we conclude these statutes are unconstitutional.
The "proper remedy," according to the court, is "that the designation of marriage to a union 'between a man and a woman' is unconstitutional and must be stricken from the statute, and that the remaining statutory language must be understood as making the designation of marriage available both to opposite-sex and same-sex couples."
The court reversed the court of appeals and ordered it to issue "a writ of mandate directing the appropriate state officials to take all actions necessary to effectuate our ruling in this case so as to ensure that county clerks and other local officials throughout the state" issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
Justice Marvin R. Baxter, joined by Justice Ming W. Chin, called the ruling a "startling" act of "legal jujitsu" that "oversteps judicial power" in his concurring and dissenting opinion:
I cannot join the majority's holding that the California Constitution gives same-sex couples a right to marry. In reaching this decision, I believe, the majority violates the separation of powers, and thereby commits profound error. Only one other American state recognizes the right the majority announces today. So far, Congress, and virtually every court to consider the issue, has rejected it. Nothing in our Constitution, express or implicit, compels the majority's startling conclusion that the age-old understanding of marriage — an understanding recently confirmed by an initiative law — is no longer valid.
But a bare majority of this court, not satisfied with the pace of democratic change, now abruptly forestalls that process and substitutes, by judicial fiat, its own social policy views for those expressed by the People themselves. Undeterred by the strong weight of state and federal law and authority, the majority invents a new constitutional right, immune from the ordinary process of legislative consideration. The majority finds that our Constitution suddenly demands no less than a permanent redefinition of marriage, regardless of the popular will.
I cannot join this exercise in legal jujitsu, by which the Legislature's own weight is used against it to create a constitutional right from whole cloth, defeat the People's will, and invalidate a statute otherwise immune from legislative interference. Though the majority insists otherwise, its pronouncement seriously oversteps the judicial power.
Justice Carol A. Corrigan writes in her concurring and dissenting opinion:
The voters who passed Proposition 22 not long ago decided to keep the meaning of marriage as it has always been understood in California. The majority improperly infringes on the prerogative of the voters by overriding their decision. It does that which it acknowledges it should not do: it redefines marriage because it believes marriage should be redefined .... It justifies its decision by finding a constitutional infirmity where none exists.
As important as the institution of marriage is for society in general, and children in particular, there is far more at stake in this ruling. The question for Californians is:
Are you going surrender your sovereign right to rule yourselves to four black-robed despots who've ignored your will and perverted your constitution?
And for clergy in particular, are you going to lead your people in taking righteous action, or hide behind a "nonpolitical" pulpit while God's ordained and holy institution is profaned?
Although there is no relief available in federal court, and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has already announced he will do nothing to terminate the ruling, the people of California can still act. This November, Californians can vote for a constitutional amendment, The California Marriage Protection Act, that will prevent this ruling from being enforced.
Californians can also initiate a recall vote for George and his three cohorts, Joyce L. Kennard, Kathryn M. Werdegar and Carlos R. Moreno, and send them packing as they did to former California Supreme Court Chief Justice Rose Bird and company.
And finally, all Americans who respect the rule of law should demand that Congress pass a constitutional amendment preserving traditional marriage, and send it to the states for ratification. It's the only way to protect state sovereignty and the will of the people from judicial tyranny.
How do you say Proposition 187 in Spanish?
"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
I am sure the spanish hate it to, most Americans do.
Its the judges with the liberal agenda that hate us that believe homosexuality is an abomination before the Lord.
Our political leaders are fools.
Its not constitutional, sayeth the left wing liberal fascists.
Unfortunately, they are every where in America and their power is growing.
I got this email yesterday from the (California) Capitol Resource Institute:
The last 24 hours have definitely been challenging for California families. Four members of our state’s highest court arrogantly decided to impose their social agenda on citizens-in spite of the fact we already decided the definition of marriage through Proposition 22. Understandably, we have received many calls and emails from families expressing their disappointment and frustration about our judiciary and legislature.
While this is a temporary obstacle for our movement, this is when we must reaffirm our resolve and redouble our efforts. Now is not the time to withdraw and cede our culture to tenacious anti-family activists. Standing up for our values is a ministry that is no different than feeding the poor or helping the homeless. This is our ministry: to protect a culture that is a safe and healthy place to raise children and live our faith.
America is unique in the world for establishing a society that balances fundamental rights with individual freedom. But some factions in society want their man-made rights to overrule our freedoms. This is the eternal struggle in America. And while this struggle to preserve our culture will never end, we can restore our freedom.
The court’s decision cannot be appealed to the United States Supreme Court so we must overturn our state’s judicial activism at the ballot box. This November, we have the chance to reclaim our freedom and our power. In light of the California Supreme Court’s outrageous decision, it is essential that we place the traditional definition of marriage in our constitution.
It is vital that you join the Protect Marriage coalition and work to pass the marriage amendment initiative on the November ballot.
Here is how you can help:
1. Educate. Email all of your friends, tell church members, and make everyone you know aware of this outrageous court decision. Many people might not understand the ramifications of this decision. In 30 days, homosexuals will be legally married in this state. But citizens should not feel helpless-we have a ballot initiative to overturn the court’s decision.
2. Stay informed. Encourage everyone you know to join our email list so we can keep them up to date on the latest news regarding the family movement and the Protect Marriage campaign.
3. Donate. Volunteering for the campaign is important, but campaigns are also extremely expensive with all the advertising, printing and other expenses it takes to spread our message. But isn’t a $100 donation worth protecting marriage for our children, grandchildren and beyond? Isn’t a $50 donation worth overturning SB 777 to protect the innocence of our children in schools? Although it may be expensive, the outcome is priceless and necessary.
The homosexual campaign against Protect Marriage is already raising money to defeat our initiative. We estimate we will be outspent 10-1.
Our campaign will be a coalition of moms, dads, grandparents and others who want to preserve our values.
Please join this important coalition today.
Please Mail Donations to:
Capitol Resource Family Impact
660 J Street, Suite 250
Sacramento, CA 95814
American journalist Marilyn vos Savant once stated that “Being defeated is often a temporary condition. Giving up is what makes it permanent.” The court’s decision may be a temporary defeat, but it will not be permanent because we will never give up!
Look at it this way, do you remember the DC gun ban? This was a bill that was supported by the elected politicians, the cops and the citizens of DC. The Judge threw the law out because it violated the 2nd Amendment in the US Constitution. If the residents of DC really want to ban guns, they are going to have to repeal the 2nd Amendment.
And that's what the Judge did in California, they said the laws were in violation of the state constitution's equal protection clause. If the citizens of California really want to ban gay marriage, then they'll have to change the State Constitution.
Do we have to like the ruling in California? Should Californians rewrite their Constitution? That's for them to decide. Should we as conservative be undermining the rule of law? Oh hell no.
1. Educate. Emunderstand the ramifications of this decision. In 30 days, homosexuals will be legally married in this state. But citizens should not feel helpless-we have a ballot initiative to overturn the court’s decision.
Kaliforniaaa goose is cooked and court decisions are worthless as the politicians and judicial terrorists are united in their work to destroy freedom, justice and Christian values and ethics.
But God will overthrow the wicked when He sends the Christ to Israel to become King of the earth following the seven year tribulation of God’s wrath on the unbelieving wicked.
[If the citizens of California really want to ban gay marriage, then they’ll have to change the State Constitution.]
The state constitution has been changed already, the people must rise up and fight the liberal left wackos who fight against them.
Fight it. You will be called homophobe. So what!
He who controls the meaning of words, controls the outcome of the debate. For all of human history, the word “marriage” meant only a heterosexual union. Any other arrangement may be a “union” but it was not “marriage”.
What do liberals really want? They could define a civil union that allowed the parties to that union to direct health care decisions, to have taxation concessions (not a factor in society until government started taxing income and death), and other factors. There always have been circumstances where this would be desirable, such as where two elderly sisters share a home and they to be able to grant the other certain control and rights in the event that one is incapacitated.
Every state legislature has long had sufficient powers to pass such laws. So has Congress.
So what appears to be going on here is a form of spiritual warfare against marriage itself.
If two elderly sisters contract with each other to take care of their affairs, it is a private matter. Employers and friends won't be pressured to always acknowledge this contract in public dealings with them. We won't have to introduce them as Mrs and Mrs Smith. But the State carries a certain amount of moral authority in the minds of many people, so even some pitiful churches will be happy to cheer such a “marriage”.
Sorry, what Kali has done is an insult to the meaning of words, to morality, to marriage. We are supposed to accept it with a smile and move on. Some Court may declare that negro humans are property, but that doesn't carry any moral authority with me. Some Court may declare that “three imbeciles are enough” and authorize force sterilization of people it considers to be insufficiently intelligent. Some Court may declare that an unborn child is not a person. Some court may declare that two women can marry.
I say we need to get a new Court.
It would be interesting if the population of CA “just say no”. Sooner or later we’re going to have to do this with the supreme court - if the obamaloon gets in. May as well start practicing now.
"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
>>
Do we have to like the ruling in California? Should Californians rewrite their Constitution? That’s for them to decide. Should we as conservative be undermining the rule of law? Oh hell no.
<<
The rule of law must be based on a solid meaning of words. The Kali court has destroyed the timeless meaning of “marriage” by redefining the word to imply that it violates equal rights. By the same logic we could talk ourselves into asserting that according to the law, males should be able to bear children.
The issue of the Second Amendment is another example, for it suffers from ‘deconstruction’, where “people” means something different, and so does “arms”, “keep” “bear”. If you care to listen to the oral arguments in Heller you would have been treated to Justice Stevens asking out loud if phrase “shall not be infringed” really should mean “shall not be unreasonably infringed”.
It used to be that women didn't have a say in who they could marry. It used to be you couldn't marry outside of your race. It used to be you could have more than one wife (and in some cases you still can). It used to be you couldn't get divorced. It used to be you could have a few women on the side.
To the state of California - Marriage is nothing more than a contract between two people. And what you are doing is trying to bring God into the discussion. But the question is who's God. The Jews have different rules for marriages (and divorce) than Evangelicals, and Muslims, Catholics have much stricter requirements. I'm fine with letting religions define marriage and divorce as long as it's the Catholic religion, any other religion is an affront to God's will and the state should not sanction it.
All hail King Court!
Customs of that supported arranged or prohibited inter-racial marriage do not redefine “marriage” at all.
While it is true that the Bible states God defined and performed the first marriage, the custom is so ingrained in human experience that marriage is an institution in societies far removed from any knowledge of God. In the very heart of animism or polytheism we find marriage only defined as between a man and a woman. Even in polygamous societies when a man made reference to one of his wives, nobody would dream it would be another man.
Now, someone may be able to provide a cite to other cases, but the overwhelming weight of social norms throughout recorded history is irrefutable.
You're nine years too late. The rule of law in the US was destroyed in 1999.
Now, it's all just shouting and posturing as it winds down to final destruction...
The concept of Marriage=love is at best 100 years old, before then you got married because of business or politics or family - and you had a few things on the side. Marriage for love is a fairly new concept.
The man-woman threshold is just another custom - just like the ban on inter-racial marriage.
And until somebody shows me how gay marriage is going to ruin their own marriage, then we are just being busybodies.
There are many who are scholars in these matters that disagree. Since they are probably more qualified than either of us to explain the problems, maybe you should look them up.
And until somebody shows me how gay marriage is going to ruin their own marriage, then we are just being busybodies.
Not if gay marriage is being used to destroy the societal concept of marriage. If I recall, the cheapening of divorce was used by the American Communist Liberties Union as a beachhead into the marriage contract years ago.
They've done an excellent job with their gambit, don't you agree?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.