Posted on 09/09/2004 9:55:20 PM PDT by Susannah
Sacramento Judge: No To California Voters, Yes To Homosexual Marriage By Another Name
Thomasson: "Judge McMaster Should Be Recalled"
Sacramento – Campaign for California Families, one of two plaintiffs in the marriage-protection cases – Campaign for California Families v. Gray Davis and Proposition 22 Legal Defense and Education Fund v. Arnold Schwarzenegger – is shocked and saddened that marriage has been counterfeited and the vote of the people utterly disregarded by a Sacramento judge.
Today, Sacramento Superior Court Judge Loren McMaster ruled in favor of pseudo-“gay marriage” bills passed by the Democrat-controlled Legislature in 2001 and 2003. The ruling upholds AB 205, which is commonly known as “gay marriage by another name” and AB 25, which awarded nearly 15 rights of marriage to same-sex couples. AB 205 is scheduled to go in effect in January 2005.
Both laws were passed despite 61.4 percent of California voters approving Proposition 22, the Protection of Marriage Initiative in March 2000. The judge ignored the clear and plain reading of the State Constitution (Article II, Section 10(c)) which prohibits the Legislature from amending the “scope and effect” of what the voters approve.
Based on this constitutional rule, California case law has steadfastly held that an unconstitutional amendment is “any change of the scope or effect of an existing statute, whether by addition, omission, or substitution of provisions…a statute which adds to or takes away from an existing statute is considered an amendment” (Franchise Tax Board v. Kenneth Cory, 80 Cal. App.3d 772, 776 (1978)).
In his ruling, Judge McMaster held that Prop. 22 applies to both in-state and out-of-state marriages, therefore prohibiting the California Legislature from creating “same-sex marriage.” However, the Gray Davis- appointed judge strangely concluded that unless something is called “marriage,” it doesn’t conflict with the voter-approved initiative in 2000.
“Judge McMaster should be recalled,” said Randy Thomasson, executive director of Campaign for California Families (CCF), a statewide nonprofit, nonpartisan family issues leadership organization. “McMaster has trashed the vote of the people who said they want everything about marriage to stay for a man and a woman. The clear and plain reading of these marriage-attacking bills was to create homosexual marriage by another name. We will appeal and seek justice for California voters and the sacred institution of marriage.”
“When the people voted for Proposition 22, they said everything about marriage is naturally for a married man and woman,” said Thomasson. “No matter what they’re called, the rights of marriage exclusively belong to a husband and wife. It’s that beautiful and that simple. Anyone who claims the rights of marriage without being a married man and woman is robbing marriage of its uniqueness and parading a negative role model for impressionable children.”
AB 205 created homosexual “marriage” without calling it marriage. The bill specifies that domestic partners “shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law…as are granted to and imposed upon spouses.”
“We call upon the California Supreme Court to jealously guard the vote of the people and protect the rights of marriage for a husband and a wife for whom they belong,” said Thomasson. “Judges who trash the will of the people could suffer the same fate as Rose Bird, who was recalled by California voters in 1986.”
“Marriage, its rights, privileges and benefits, are necessarily only for a man and a woman,” concluded Thomasson. “Distributing marriage rights to non-married couples leaves marriage an empty shell, disrespected and disregarded by ultra-liberal politicians and judges who are out of touch with family values.”
“While we are disappointed that the court failed to protect the rights of California voters, all parties knew this case would ultimately be decided by an appellate court,” said Rena Lindevaldsen, Senior Litigation Counsel of Liberty Counsel, which represented Campaign for California Families last month in Sacramento Superior Court. “We intend to appeal this decision, and are confident that the appellate court will recognize that the voters, in approving Proposition 22, intended to protect not the mere label of ‘marriage’ but the very essence of marriage for a husband and wife.”
one local tv news channel annouced it today and described the ruling as "domestic partnerships with full benefits of marriage"
Of the judges, by the judges, for the judges.
Homosexual Agenda Ping - Wow, surprise, suprise! CA judges (aka Nazgul) spit in the faces of the California voters. Well, I guess they do that every working day, and twice on Sundays.
Don't forget, in the great state of California judges who belong to the BSA (Boy Scouts of America) are disqualified from sitting on any case involving homosexuals/homosexuality. Since they are by definition "bigoted and biased". Of course, "gay" judges can judge on homo-matters and it's okey dokey.
Time to get rid of a whole bunch of judges.
Let me and ItsOurTimeNow if you want on/off this pinglist.
(I be back for a little while....)
This should be a warning to ALL the states that voted to protect marriage. If you have liberal judges nothing will stop the homosexuals in your state.
Geez, even many of the churches are performing homosexual marriages. The latest churches that tried to break away from the main church to avoid this were told if they don't tow the liberal line all their religious property would be confiscated because the MAIN church owns it.
Also on local tv news this week: a Cardinal making a statement to followers about how the government must look out for the poor AND be kind to the "undocumented workers" by granting them drivers licenses.
Susannah (stuck here in land of liberal judges and only a few legislative conservatives HOPING the rest of the nation will vote smarter than Californication)
California is an egregious example of power mad leftist judges run amok. Of course, the state legislature is nothing to write home about...
fox news is running a story on shepard smiths hour. He is TRYING to imply that any DOMA would hurt unmarried heterosexual couples. Utter BS. It does NOT affect contractual cohabitation agreements or health care documents like healecare surrogat or advance directives.
Look for more propaganda lies.
California needs a constitutional amemendment to bypass teh judges and undo marriage without the word marriage.
What jive. If "unmarried heterosexual [i.e. normal] couples are "hurt", then they can get married!!
Jeez.
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.