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.
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.
Thanks for the clarification, I hope it passes.
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.
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.
“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.
No wonder California is going bankrupt....the sooner it falls off in the ocean, the better.
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.
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.
"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
"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
"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
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.