Posted on 06/16/2008 8:09:36 AM PDT by rhema
CALIFORNIA'S voters, unlike their counterparts in Massachusetts, will have the last word on what marriage means in their state. When the highest court in Massachusetts conjured up a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, 170,000 Bay State voters petitioned for an amendment to the state constitution that would restore the age-old definition. Their effort died on the vine when the Legislature derailed the measure before it could reach the ballot.
But citizen initiatives aren't so easily thwarted in California, where last week the state supreme court, in a 4-3 ruling, likewise overturned the timeless understanding of marriage as a union of male and female. Some 1.1 million signatures have already been submitted on behalf of a constitutional amendment making clear that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." That is far more than needed, making it virtually certain that Californians will have an opportunity to override the court's presumptuous diktat.
And override it they should, for numerous reasons. Here are three:
It is not the business of judges to make public policy.
Reasonable men and women can disagree on whether same-sex unions should be granted legal recognition, or whether such recognition should rise to the level of marriage. The place to work out those disagreements is the democratic arena, not the courtroom.
"From the beginning of California statehood," the court's majority opinion admits, "the legal institution of civil marriage has been understood to refer to a relationship between a man and a woman." Eight years ago, Californians decisively affirmed that understanding when they adopted Proposition 22, the California Defense of Marriage Act, in a 61-39 landslide. To have legitimacy, any change in that consensus must come from the people or their elected representatives, not be forced upon them by an imperial judiciary.
The radical
(Excerpt) Read more at jewishworldreview.com ...
“Marraige” and “gay” don’t belong in the same sentence.
No we don't.
We have the 9th District to make sure the citizens don't get to uppity.
C'mon son....get with the program!
Ever notice no one ever explains how homosex marriage will benefit socicety as a whole? It’s always, we want it and it’s not fair if we don’t get it. For this we need to redefine the parameters of the foundation of our civilization?
They “know better” and are wiser than God or anyone that ever lived.
This is how “liberals” think.
This debate isn't really about "gay marriage" IMO. It is about using the word "marriage." If Civil Unions were legally recognized in all 50 states and conferred all the same rights as monogamous heterosexual marriage upon gay civil unions, we would still have this debate. "Gay marriage" is about destruction of the nuclear family living under god in a free country.
Indeed.
Stability is in the interests of society.
Married couples are more apt to settle down and buy houses, etc. than casual relationships.
Married couples are less apt to spread STD’s far and wide.
Well said. That's exactly the point.
No question about it, the destruction of the nuclear family is the ultimate aim of the liberal agenda. Destroy the family unit, and you have destroyed a society.
The new liberal WOS (war on semantics)
“Marriage” is a legal construct recognizing a relationship between two people. Married people are afforded benefits unavailable to the non-married. The purpose of marriage is for the state to encourage the basic building block of society.
“Gay Marriage” ignores this purpose. A state can confer or deny these benefits as it sees fit - people are also free to live and do business in any state they like.
The net result will be a failing of CA and MA as states. Productive populations will migrate elsewhere.
This is old.
Just as "racism" and "neo-con" have been redefined as THEY want, "marriage" is on the hit parade too.
On a side note, I think the best example of the Lib Redefinition Agenda can be found on the TV show "So you think you can dance". A fairly tall girl was scrubbed and, in tears said "I think the judges are racist against tall people".
Says all you need to know.....
It's an editorial (not a news report), it hasn't been posted before, and it proffers three valid reasons for Californians to wrest control of their institutions from the Ninth Circuit.
Frederick Engels 1847
The Principles of Communism
What will be the influence of communist society on the family?
It will transform the relations between the sexes into a purely private matter which concerns only the persons involved and into which society has no occasion to intervene.
It can do this since it does away with private property and educates children on a communal basis, and in this way removes the two bases of traditional marriage – the dependence rooted in private property, of the women on the man, and of the children on the parents.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm
Sure it does. My wife and I have a wonderful, gay-filled marriage. Of course, I’m using the actual definition of “gay”, not the usurped definition of “homosexual”.
It has since been qualified for the ballot, so expect the gay-lesbian-transgender community and their supporters to rally. We must get out their and counter them.
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.