Posted on 05/15/2008 2:38:55 PM PDT by kellynla
ANN ARBOR, MI – The Thomas More Law Center harshly condemned today’s 4-3 ruling of the California Supreme Court, holding that the California Constitution requires recognition of same-sex marriages, in an unprecedented overturning of a citizen initiative statute protecting traditional marriage. The three dissenters on the panel argued that the issue should have been left to the political process.
Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center commented, “This outrageous ruling shows how our most cherished institutions are being destroyed by the tyrannical actions of an out-of-control judiciary. The California Supreme Court took judicial activism to a whole new level. When four judges can overturn the vote of the people protecting marriage, the Constitution’s guarantee of a Republican form of government becomes meaningless. This battle is not over.”
Charles LiMandri, the Thomas More Law Center’s West Coast Director, has been named the General Counsel to the “National Organization for Marriage.” This is the organization spearheading the California ballot initiative to amend the California state constitution to define marriage between one man and one woman only. This ballot initiative recently submitted well over the required number of signatures to be placed on the November ballot.
Charles LiMandri stated, “Thanks to the tireless efforts of the ‘National Organization for Marriage, ’ and the many groups that have supported it, like the Thomas More Law Center, the courts will not have the final say on marriage in California — the people will in November.”
The Thomas More Law Center is in discussion with Charles LiMandri to determine what options are available in the meantime. Richard Thompson commented, “There is the possibility that we may ask for a stay in the court’s ruling considering that between now and November it would be legal in California for same-sex couples to marry, and come November – if the amendment passes – it would be unconstitutional again.”
The Thomas More Law Center drafted Michigan’s constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman, which was recently upheld by the Michigan Supreme Court.
I just wish we had a governor with nads after ten years of not having one. Maybe next time.
These are the kind of justices that Obama will put on the Supreme Court.
But go ahead, FRiends and vote third party or stay home. There is no reason to back a moderate like McCain.
Good for Richard Thompson for speaking out, he’s exactly right.
"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
Ahnold had previously said it was an issue for the PEOPLE to decide. Now he’s back pedalling and saying he’ll support the judges’ decision.
Jerry Brown's in the bullpen warming up to render this state's coup de grace (if SchwarzenKennedy doesn't beat him to it). Who have we got?
They are also the kind of justices that McCain will put on the Supreme Court. Or are you unaware that he voted for Ruth Bader Ginsburg?
There is no reason to back a moderate like McCain.
Certainly not if the issue is the kinds of Justices he'll appoint.
It’s just like Davis’ decision not to appeal the proposition that defunded programs to illegal immigrants, when it was overturned.
These guys are enemies of the public.
this is why a Constitutional amendment is necessary - come on Congress, get the ball rolling!!
I read an article a month or so ago that talked about the ex-CEO of EBay. Evidently she has been befriended by a leading Republican and may run for governor herself. Her political history has been described as funding leftist political candidates.
The Republican? John McCain.
Thank goodness we have the California Republican leadership to fall back on. Oh wait, they gave us Arnold. Well, sure glad we have the RNC to fall back on. Oh wait, they can’t buck McCain, their shining TOP DOG.
We’re in a world of hurt.
This issue had been in the background for a few years, as state courts in a few states had upheld the traditional definition of marriage as being constitutional in those states, after Mass. has ruled for same-sex marriage. This throws gasoline on the fire of the marriage issue again.
Democrats shut down the Mass. legislature which was to have allowed a vote on an amendment in Mass. on marriage for this year. They used parliamentary procedure to adjourn the legislature without approving it for a vote of the people in Mass. The Democrats reasoning was that they didn’t want a debate about same sex marriage in an election year. And by adjourning, the Mass. legislature put it off until a future date.
Well, they now have their election year debate about same sex marriage. Efforts had been underway to vote in Calif. in November on the definition of marriage. Efforts are also underway in Florida and Arizona for this year’s general election.
WHEN WILL CONSERVATIVE AMERICANS SAY “ENOUGH”?
Stop agologizing and STAND FOR YOUR RIGHT?
THE LEFT DOES IT WELL AND IN FORCE!!!!
THE CHURCH IS TOO BUSY MAKING MONEY!!!!!!
sorry for yelling, but I am sooooo mad!
It gets me that some say these gay marriage court cases are like Brown vs. Board of Education regarding school segregation.
I would point out that the Brown decision was unanimous, whereas all of the gay marriage cases are divided. Calif was a 4-3 vote, Mass. was a 4-3 vote, and other states courts were divided in upholding traditional marriage. These splits reveal that there is no clear consensus or guideline in the law on the issue.
A future U.S. Supreme Court will decide it. We’ll either have 50 state same sex marriage, or a patchwork of different state laws on the subject.
You secessfully butcher the English language in a way most amusing.
If you set moral objections aside, this is a bad ruling from a Constitutional point of view. If there had ever bene a Constitutional right to marry someone of the same gender, it would have been already been written there. This is lawmaking by judicial fiat, four judges who think their law degrees and black robes give them the right to impose their views on an unwilling public because they think they’re so much smarter than everybody else.
Actually, Arnold said he would also abide by a court decison.
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.