Please freepmail me if you want on/off this list
Posted on 08/11/2005 4:22:17 PM PDT by NYer
SACRAMENTO, August 11, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The California Supreme Court said Wednesday that it would not hand down a ruling on the constitutionality of same-sex “marriage.” The decision means the issue remains open – a ruling welcomed by a pro-family group that is pushing for a constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex “marriage” for the state.
Executive Director of Campaign for California Families, Randy Thomasson, told the Associated Press, “It's very good that the high court declined to hear this case.” Thomasson had asked the court not to rule on the issue. “The high court should never turn marriage upside down and inside out.”
The ruling means that the case will be sent back to San Francisco’s 1st District Court of Appeal, where a decision is not likely for months. A constitutional amendment to permanently ban same-sex “marriage” could go to voters as soon as next year.
Last August, the same court unanimously ruled that the marriage licenses granted to thousands of same-sex couples by San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom were illegal and thus null. Last week, the Supreme Court ordered that private companies grant same-sex “domestic partners” spousal benefits.
The spousal benefit case revolved around a suit instigated by a lesbian, B. Birgit Koebke, who wanted spousal benefits to apply to her same-sex partner, thereby affording her the benefit of free golf at her country club.
“[A] business that extends benefits to spouses it denies to registered domestic partners engages in impermissible marital status discrimination,” Justice Carlos R. Moreno wrote in the unanimous opinion of the court, according to a Baptist Press report. “... [A] chief goal of the Domestic Partner Act is to equalize the status of registered domestic partners and married couples.”
The pro-family coalitions – http://www.ProtectMarriage.com and http://www.VoteYesMarriage.com – are fighting to have a same-sex “marriage” constitutional amendment placed on the ballot in 2006.
Ping!
Isn't the word "couple" just a teensy....discriminatory? Shouldn't that read, "...married groups"?
</slippery slope>
CA law *bump*
Lefties must be making protest signs like mad right now. protests in Crawford, protests at the whitehouse, protests at the VA hospital, Rove protests.. they must be getting tired staying up late smoking dope and protesting. /s
You might as well contend that this decision supports Scientology.
Homosexual Agenda Ping.
Hmm, I need some smart brains to explain this. The CA Supremes declined to hear the same sex marriage case (which those who know seem to take as a good thing) but still forced domestic partner garbage down our throats.
Domestic partner being the same, more or less, as marriage, just without the title.
I'm not jumping for joy; what I want to see is how people vote on the Constitutional amendment. Remember the referendum a couple of years ago? That supported marriage something like 63-64%.
Freepmail me if you want on/off this pinglist.
The gay agenda pushers wanted this in the State Supreme court. Now that they have failed there, they want it in the Supreme Court.
"Lefties must be making protest signs like mad right now. protests in Crawford, protests at the whitehouse, protests at the VA hospital, Rove protests.. they must be getting tired staying up late smoking dope and protesting. /s"
You have described about all these losers in life can do. So they keep doing it, and proving Einstein to be correct about insanity.
Ah! Well, that's clear. If the gay agenda pushers want it in the state supreme court, then it's good that they didn't hear it.
What, O what will the SCOTUS do? Will Roberts be on it? And what kind of a man is he, anyway?
It also violates a Supreme Court decision, Reynolds v. United States, 1878, where the court determined marriage was to be regulated by statute alone... It is also the case where the erroneous ‘separation of church and state’ became a legal precedent...
Aw crap! Has Massachusetts now become nuttier than California?
If you went by density of liberals, I think Massachusetts is about to reach critical mass!
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.