Thomas More Law Center Condemns California Supreme Court’s Mandate of Homosexual Marriages

Thomas More Law Center ^ | May 15, 2008 | staff

[DoughtyOne]

I just wish we had a governor with nads after ten years of not having one. Maybe next time.

[proudpapa]

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.

[jazusamo]

Good for Richard Thompson for speaking out, he’s exactly right.

[goldstategop]

The people of California will have the final say in November. Liberals just handed their opponents the issue they were looking for. Their contempt for people's values is going to backfire on them.

"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

[informavoracious]

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.

[Bernard Marx]

Maybe next time.

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?

[Technogeeb]

These are the kind of justices that Obama will put on the Supreme Court.

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.

[DoughtyOne]

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.

[elpadre]

this is why a Constitutional amendment is necessary - come on Congress, get the ball rolling!!

[DoughtyOne]

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.

[Dilbert San Diego]

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.

[Texas4ever]

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!

[Dilbert San Diego]

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.

[j. earl carter]

You secessfully butcher the English language in a way most amusing.

[Clintonfatigued]

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.

[Doc91678]

Here we go again. Judges making laws from the bench without benefit of the PEOPLE’s views considered.Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution is there any mention that a man has the right to marry a man, or the right of a woman to marry another woman. The Bible calls such unions an abomination and a sin against God's laws.

[Doc91678]

Here we go again. Judges making laws from the bench without benefit of the PEOPLE’s views considered.Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution is there any mention that a man has the right to marry a man, or the right of a woman to marry another woman. The Bible calls such unions an abomination and a sin against God's laws.

[muleskinner]

Actually, Arnold said he would also abide by a court decison.