Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Thomas More Law Center Condemns California Supreme Court’s Mandate of Homosexual Marriages
Thomas More Law Center ^ | May 15, 2008 | staff

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.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Extended News; Government; US: California
KEYWORDS: ca; homosexual; homosexualagenda; marriage; supremecourt; thomasmore
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-58 next last
To: informavoracious

I guess the Conan bit WAS an act.


21 posted on 05/15/2008 3:24:46 PM PDT by tbw2 ("Sirat: Through the Fires of Hell" by Tamara Wilhite - on amazon.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Clintonfatigued
If you set moral objections aside, this is a bad ruling from a Constitutional point of view. If there had ever been 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.

Amen, fellow Freeper, amen! The job of the judiciary is to decide whether something is in keeping with the Constitution or not. If it isn't, the affair is thrown back to the legislative body with "Sorry. No go. Try (re)writing it another way, then we'll see."

It's function is not to decide, "Yes (or No) regarding this case. And now how's we're ordering you to do it."

22 posted on 05/15/2008 3:28:00 PM PDT by yankeedame ("Oh, I can take it but I'd much rather dish it out.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Fred

ping


23 posted on 05/15/2008 3:33:08 PM PDT by kellynla (Freedom of speech makes it easier to spot the idiots! Semper Fi!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clintonfatigued

Ultra Cliff Notes version of this ruling: “They” use the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. It is for equal application of the laws. The State Supreme Court decided domestic partnership laws don’t protect certain people as well as marriage laws.


24 posted on 05/15/2008 3:38:34 PM PDT by muleskinner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: proudpapa

Well you have a problem with that argument. I think five of the judges were there from the Wilson and Duke administrations.


25 posted on 05/15/2008 3:39:42 PM PDT by purpleraine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

Do you think this issue could put California in play in the Electoral College?


26 posted on 05/15/2008 3:53:15 PM PDT by Paleo Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: kellynla; Salvation; narses; SMEDLEYBUTLER; redhead; Notwithstanding; nickcarraway; Romulus; ...
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

Ecclesiastes
Chapter 1
1
1 The words of David's son, Qoheleth, king in Jerusalem:
2
2 Vanity of vanities, says Qoheleth, vanity of vanities! All things are vanity!
3
3 What profit has man from all the labor which he toils at under the sun?
4
One generation passes and another comes, but the world forever stays.
5
The sun rises and the sun goes down; then it presses on to the place where it rises.
6
Blowing now toward the south, then toward the north, the wind turns again and again, resuming its rounds.
7
All rivers go to the sea, yet never does the sea become full. To the place where they go, the rivers keep on going.
8
4 All speech is labored; there is nothing man can say. The eye is not satisfied with seeing nor is the ear filled with hearing.
9
What has been, that will be; what has been done, that will be done. Nothing is new under the sun.
10
Even the thing of which we say, "See, this is new!" has already existed in the ages that preceded us.
11
5 There is no remembrance of the men of old; nor of those to come will there be any remembrance among those who come after them.


IOW - everything old is new again. This paganistic practice existed in all the great empires - Rome - Athens - etc. Each time society embraced this foolishness, it collapsed. Those who do not learn from history are forced to repeat it.

Catholic Ping List
Please freepmail me if you want on/off this list


27 posted on 05/15/2008 4:17:44 PM PDT by NYer (Jesus whom I know as my Redeemer cannot be less than God. - St. Athanasius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kellynla

I am shocked. Who could ever imagine the gubberment messing up marriage. Gubberment does so well at everything else...

Freegards


28 posted on 05/15/2008 4:26:11 PM PDT by Ransomed (Son of Ransomed says Keep the Faith!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kellynla
Image hosted by Photobucket.com filthy disease ridden queers strike again...
29 posted on 05/15/2008 4:30:27 PM PDT by Chode (American Hedonist ©®)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

You need to do some research on Meg Whitman. She is hardly a leftist.

http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/index.php


30 posted on 05/15/2008 4:30:36 PM PDT by iowamark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
We’re in a world of hurt.

This is one truly ugly election. Hillary is pro-death; Obama takes it a step futher in favor of infanticide and McCain will keep us in the war. He is still the least threatening of all the candidates. Should he be elected, we can expect little will be accomplished as Pelosi and her followers try to block any legislation he may try to pass. With him, we can buy 4 more years.

Hey, what about Jindhal (sp?)?

31 posted on 05/15/2008 4:32:05 PM PDT by NYer (Jesus whom I know as my Redeemer cannot be less than God. - St. Athanasius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

It is my biggest regret as a Freeper that I opposed Patrick Buchanan’s candidacy in 2000. It was doomed anyway, of course, but it was quite possibly the last time for a conservative to support a major politician in earnest.


32 posted on 05/15/2008 4:56:43 PM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: annalex

My wife, to her credit, voted for Buchanan that year.

PJB is wrong about some things. He is right about a great many more. Too bad such men are unelectable under our republican system of government.

We are so boned.


33 posted on 05/15/2008 5:32:11 PM PDT by B-Chan (Catholic. Monarchist. Texan. Any questions?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
Here's the tragedy: 3 of the 4 CA Supremes who voted for the Gay Special Rights decision were Republican appointments. Apparently "Republicans" no longer believe in the Republican form of government, where the people have the final say.

Yesterday's devastating Polar Bear announcement that will stop Alaskan oil development forever was made by a "conservative Republican" Interior Secretary serving a "Republican" President, enforcing a law signed into being by another "Republican" President.

The Stupid Party's circular firing squad has finally done its job. There is no longer any point in voting. Tyrants in black judicial robes run this country. One vote on the Court trumped a legal, binding election in CA. What a travesty!

34 posted on 05/15/2008 5:35:39 PM PDT by Bernard Marx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Bernard Marx
Apparently "Republicans" no longer believe in the Republican form of government, where the people have the final say.

Interesting interpretation of what a Republic is.

35 posted on 05/15/2008 5:39:21 PM PDT by Doe Eyes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: annalex
>>>>It is my biggest regret as a Freeper that I opposed Patrick Buchanan’s candidacy in 2000.

But at least you know better now. The tragedy is that so many do not.

36 posted on 05/15/2008 5:48:22 PM PDT by Thorin ("I won't be reconstructed, and I do not give a damn.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: kellynla

When the Rotweiler bears his teeth, the puppies do, too.


37 posted on 05/15/2008 5:49:44 PM PDT by the invisib1e hand (my money's on righteous hustle and blue eyed soul.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Doe Eyes
Okay, explain it to me. My understanding of a Democratic Republic involves duly elected representatives making laws for the people. The lawmakers are not necessarily bound to faithfully "represent" the wishes of the people who elected them, being free to bring their best judgment to bear on such decisions.

BUT when the people speak on a ballot initiative (plebiscite?) aren't their decisions to be honored? The people of CA passed Prop. 187 which, after years of dilatory legal mumbo jumbo, was wrongly declared unconstitutional by a federal judge. Gray Davis killed it forever by refusing to file an appeal.

Now our black-robed Masters have decided by a single vote that the will of the people should again be ignored. I'm interested in your explanation of why that should be.

38 posted on 05/15/2008 5:56:31 PM PDT by Bernard Marx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: elpadre

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

I think it is a pure pipe dream if the do-nothing congress will ever get the ball rolling.


39 posted on 05/15/2008 5:58:48 PM PDT by bulldozer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: kellynla

The gay marriage issue is a dictionary problem. When two persons of the same sex manipulate each others genitals for sexual gratification they have no intention of making babies. Perhaps from envy they demand the social recognition that married couples get. If the pairing is friendly and extended they want married privileges. Perhaps they deserve some the benefits like health care coverage on one partners job health plan. But lets fix the dictionary and call it garriage, and say they are garried. So when legislators pass laws they can choose to clearly express which legal benefit and responsibility goes to each type of union.


40 posted on 05/15/2008 6:20:49 PM PDT by dr huer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-58 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson