Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

California High Court Overrules People – Legalizes Gay “Marriage”
Protectmarriage.com ^ | 5/15/2008 | Unk.

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 California’s 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 individual’s sexual orientation — like a person’s race or gender — does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights.”

"The Court’s rationale for its decision should prompt outrage from the majority of California’s 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 Court’s decision by passing a constitutional amendment – and California’s 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 Court’s ruling coincides with the submission of 1.1 million signatures to California’s 58 counties. Known as the California Marriage Protection Act, the initiative’s 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 marriage’s tradition and historic purposes, as well as the will of the people.”

The Court’s 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.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events; US: California
KEYWORDS: california; gaymarriage; homosexualagenda; samesexmarriage
The decision made today by these 4 leftist ambulance chasers will be overturned by the people in November.
1 posted on 05/15/2008 3:25:08 PM PDT by Signalman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Bobkk47

No sweat, there will be a backlash and the people pushing this activism will soon be in a worse place than when they began.


2 posted on 05/15/2008 3:29:33 PM PDT by Seven Minute Maniac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bobkk47
The decision made today by these 4 leftist ambulance chasers will be overturned by the people in November.

Only to be RE-OVERTURNED again?

3 posted on 05/15/2008 3:29:55 PM PDT by Bommer (There's an (R) next to his name! I must trash my principles & beliefs and vote for the (R)!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bobkk47

It ain’t “gay” (having or showing a merry, lively mood) nor is it “marriage (Matthew 19:4 - 6).


4 posted on 05/15/2008 3:30:37 PM PDT by Manfred the Wonder Dawg (Test ALL things, hold to that which is True.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bommer

The vote in November would be on a constitutional amendment, so it couldn’t be overturned by a court.


5 posted on 05/15/2008 3:32:48 PM PDT by Dilbert San Diego
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Bobkk47

Next step — legalized marriage between a man and a man’s best friend. Woof!


6 posted on 05/15/2008 3:33:44 PM PDT by 353FMG (Don't make the mistake to think that Government is a Friend of the People)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bobkk47

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.


7 posted on 05/15/2008 3:34:02 PM PDT by Andy'smom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Seven Minute Maniac

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.


8 posted on 05/15/2008 3:36:05 PM PDT by Dilbert San Diego
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Bobkk47

From Massachusetts to California, the black-robed tyrants
have eliminated the role of the citizen’s votes.


9 posted on 05/15/2008 3:36:45 PM PDT by Diogenesis (Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Andy'smom

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.


10 posted on 05/15/2008 3:37:05 PM PDT by Dilbert San Diego
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Bobkk47
...“an individual’s sexual orientation — like a person’s race or gender — does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights.”

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.

11 posted on 05/15/2008 3:38:16 PM PDT by AreaMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bobkk47

12 posted on 05/15/2008 3:39:03 PM PDT by BurbankKarl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BurbankKarl

Sickening... to think we have NO SAY!!!!


13 posted on 05/15/2008 3:41:11 PM PDT by pollywog (I will lift mine eyes to the hills from whence cometh my help. My help comes from the Lord...Ps 121)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert San Diego

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.


14 posted on 05/15/2008 3:55:03 PM PDT by Signalman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Bobkk47

To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
-Thomas Jefferson


15 posted on 05/15/2008 4:02:56 PM PDT by Fred Hayek (Leftism is a mental disorder)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Andy'smom

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.


16 posted on 05/15/2008 4:06:04 PM PDT by Right Cal Gal (Abraham Lincoln would have let Berkeley leave the Union without a fight)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Bobkk47

Sadly, this is the only way the “enlightened” can pass their agenda. Activist courts are truly the worst.


17 posted on 05/15/2008 4:09:06 PM PDT by Dazed_Catt (World hunger and food shortages??............thank you algore.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Andy'smom

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?


18 posted on 05/15/2008 4:09:18 PM PDT by CdMGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Bobkk47

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?


19 posted on 05/15/2008 4:20:23 PM PDT by Dilbert San Diego
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Bobkk47

“In the majority decision authored by Chief Justice Ronald George, he wrote “an individual’s sexual orientation — like a person’s 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.


20 posted on 05/15/2008 4:28:00 PM PDT by TalBlack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bommer
"Only to be RE-OVERTURNED again?"

You think they would actually try to rule the Constitution as being unconstitutional? Wait a sec, what am I asking, this is California.......never mind.

21 posted on 05/15/2008 4:31:26 PM PDT by joebuck (Finitum non capax infinitum!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: CdMGuy; Right Cal Gal

Thanks for the clarification, I hope it passes.


22 posted on 05/15/2008 5:00:04 PM PDT by Andy'smom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: AreaMan
What possible objections could there be to these unions?

You're assuming the people who come up with things are rational and not just engaging of post-hoc rationalization of their emotional states. So the equal protection clause protects gay marriage but doesn't affect things like gender-segregated changing room facilities. Why? Because they say so.

23 posted on 05/15/2008 5:04:02 PM PDT by garbanzo (Government is not the solution to our problems. Government is the problem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Bommer

no because it is law vs constitutional amendment.

This was a LAW that was overturned, in November it is an Amendment.

The California Supreme court would have to rule a constitutional amendment unconstitutional. That would only be done via the federal constitution.

It just shows the need for a federal marriage amendment.

This is a worst case scenario for the three democrats running for president. It helps down ticket conservatives though.


24 posted on 05/15/2008 5:12:19 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Andy'smom

“despite having gathered the largest number of signatures for any petition in the state’s history”

I’d say that’s unconsitutional by anyone’s reckoning, but that’d be obvious.


25 posted on 05/15/2008 5:16:08 PM PDT by combat_boots (She lives! 22 weeks, 9.5 inches. Go, baby, go!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: combat_boots

No wonder California is going bankrupt....the sooner it falls off in the ocean, the better.


26 posted on 05/15/2008 6:52:43 PM PDT by cowdog77 (Circle the Wagons)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: AreaMan

Good point. They’re all about “love” and “relationships,” right?

What the dimwits on this Court don’t realize, is that the purpose of a Marriage Law is not to put a “stamp of approval” on our loves or to “dignify” our relationships.

Holy Communion in my Church is a matter of love between me and Jesus, but I don’t go to the government to license it. A Religious Order establishes a permanent committed relationship between all the members of the community, but you don’t need the government to define it, regulate it, or enforce it.

In short, the purpose of the Marriage Law is not to legitimize “relationships.” The purpose of the Marriage Law is to recognize an already-existing institution, which is both previous to, and foundational to, every tribe, society and nation.

Marriage has a universal male-female form, because male-female is the ONLY human pairing which can spontaneously produce dependent children, whose well-being is best secured by their mother and father, and whose relationships society is thus bound to recognize and protect.

In overturning Proposition 22, the California court ruled that the people of California are not fit to govern themselves. But the court didn’t just overturn the will of the people of California. It overturned the wisdom of humankind of every continent, in every century, of every culture.


27 posted on 05/16/2008 7:52:14 AM PDT by Mrs. Don-o (Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Bobkk47

Agreed. McCain could work this into not only winning CA, but perhaps save many GOP congressional seats.

I suspect that 2:1 against homo marriage is nationwide. He could also use the decision to reeinforce his support for constructionist judges.

This could be hugh.


28 posted on 05/16/2008 9:16:38 AM PDT by Jacquerie (McCain will offer battle to Islam - The Obamabeast will offer our heads.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Bobkk47
Agreed. That can't happen here in Colorado. Our marriage protection law is backed up the state constitution. Every state other than California has taken the step of putting marriage protection in its state constitution so leftist judges can't strike it down.

"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

29 posted on 05/16/2008 5:51:53 PM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Andy'smom
Unlike Massachusetts, California has the initiative and the people can override the courts if they want. Its an outrageous decision that's a deep affront to social order and moral rules.

"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

30 posted on 05/16/2008 5:54:12 PM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert San Diego
The California Supreme Court decision revealed the Left wasn't satisfied just with civil unions and alternative domestic arrangements for homosexuals. It wanted to strike at the roots of marriage and the family. It must not be allowed to stand!

"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

31 posted on 05/16/2008 5:57:12 PM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson