State
Supreme Court upholds voters' adoption of constitutional definition of marriage
Posted: May
26, 2009
1:18 pm Eastern
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
One small but sweet victory in this terrible war that
Homosexuals have unleashed upon the
We posted an article about Homosexuals praying which brings
up some important considerations for witnessing to these people. Despite the rhetoric Homosexuals fear death,
and the judgment of God for their sin.
Quite a number seem to desire to go to church and to be Christians, to
be Evangelicals, Fundamentalists, Pentecostals and Charismatics.
One might ask, How can this be? First the Holy Spirit strives with all men,
Secondly and most damning the Church of this hour comforts people in their sin.
Third the Church hath blinded itself condemning any discernment used within its
midst to separate sheep and goats, wheat and chaff, denying any need of repentance,
of humbling oneself before God, and fearing God.
When found in the Church of Laodicea Jesus Christ commanded
these evil and sinful qualities be utterly repented of individually as the
Laodiceans as a Church could no longer be redeemed, only individuals that could
still hear His Voice.
The
But in a decision
today that essentially was a 6-1 vote, the court
upheld the estimated 17,000 to 18,000 same-sex relationships that were
formalized last year between its approval of "gay marriage" in May
and the November ballot initiative that overruled the decision
"We conclude Proposition 8 constitutes a constitutional amendment
rather than a constitutional revision. As a quantitative matter, petitioners
concede that Proposition 8 – which adds but a single, simple section to the
Constitution – does not constitute a revision," said the majority opinion
written by Chief Justice Ronald George.
"As a qualitative matter, the act of limiting access to the designation
of marriage to opposite-sex couples does not have a substantial or, indeed,
even a minimal effect on the governmental plan or framework of
"Furthermore, the judiciary's authority in applying the state
Constitution always has been limited by the content of the provisions set forth
in our Constitution, and that limitation remains unchanged," said George.
At issue was the Proposition 8 state constitutional amendment adopted by
voters in November. At its adoption it became part of the state constitution,
defining marriage as being between one man and one woman only.
The amendment gathered the support of nearly 53 percent of
Homosexual-rights activists sued following the 2008 election, contending the
amendment was a constitutional "revision" rather than an
"amendment." Amendments can be put on the ballot by petition;
revisions must earn the approval first of the state legislature, which is
dominated by pro-homosexual Democrats.
The court essentially "grandfathered" in the thousands of
homosexual "marriages" processed by the state, reasoning that to
nullify them would create a conflict with the state's due process.
"Under these circumstances, we conclude that interpreting Proposition 8
to apply retroactively would create a serious conflict between the new
constitutional provision and the protections afforded by the state due process
clause," the opinion said.
"In the absence of a clear and unambiguous statement that the new
provision is to have such an effect, the general legal guideline that requires
courts to interpret potentially conflicting constitutional provisions in a
manner that harmonizes the provisions, to the extent possible, further supports
the conclusion that Proposition 8 properly must be interpreted to apply only
prospectively."
Before
The latest California Supreme Court ruling came about after homosexual
activists, unhappy with the decision by the state's voters, filed lawsuits over
their claim to "marriage" rights.
According to the Associated Press, "gay" rights activists even
before the ruling was announced were threatening "angry" protests if
the court didn't rule in their favor. They already have announced a plan to
return to the ballot box in 2012 to demand a repeal of Proposition 8.
Frank Schubert, who directed the successful Prop 8 campaign, said
traditional marriage supporters don't have events planned.
"We will react to it in an appropriate fashion," Schubert told AP.
As the
time of the November election, the ballot box loss infuriated homosexual
activists, some of whom gathered around traditional marriage advocates to
rage and bully.
When the justices heard arguments on the dispute several months ago,
supporters of traditional marriage reported they were pleased by the tone and
direction of the questions.
Randy Thomasson, president of Campaign for Children and Families,
who participated in a friend-of-the-court brief submitted on behalf of
traditional marriage, said at the time two of the justices who less than a year
ago voted to "invent" homosexual "marriages" appeared
"to have gotten the message loud and clear, that they have been overruled
by the voters."
Thomasson described George and Associate Justice
Joyce Kennard as "hard" on those who challenged the rights of voters
to change their state constitution.
Thomasson said when the arguments turned to the
estimated 18,000 same-sex "marriages" performed in
The amendment notes that no matter when and where "marriages" are performed, only those between a man and woman are to be
recognized or valid in the state.
"Ken Starr did a brilliant job defending our positions, that this was
an amendment and people have the right to amend their constitution," said
Karen England, executive director of the Sacramento-based Capitol Resource Institute, at the
time.
A friend-of-the-court brief submitted by the Florida-based nonprofit legal
group Liberty Counsel suggested invalidating
the amendment would "undermine" the role of the people as authors of
the constitution.
"The judiciary is but the creature of the Constitution, and cannot
judge its creator. It cannot rise above the source of its own existence. If it
could do this, it could annul the Constitution, instead of simply declaring
what it means," the brief explained.
When the 2008 ruling was released, Justice Marvin Baxter filed a dissent
that warned of utter chaos in the institution of marriage unless judicial and
executive activism is reined in.
"The bans on incestuous and polygamous marriages are ancient and deeprooted, and, as the majority suggests, they are
supported by strong considerations of social policy," he wrote. "Our
society abhors such relationships, and the notion that our laws could not
forever prohibit them seems preposterous. Yet here, the majority overturns, in
abrupt fashion, an initiative statute confirming the equally deep-rooted
assumption that marriage is a union of partners of the opposite sex. The
majority does so by relying on its own assessment of contemporary community
values, and by inserting in our Constitution an expanded definition of the
right to marry that contravenes express statutory law.
"Who can say that, in 10, 15 or 20 years, an activist court might not
rely on the majority's analysis to conclude, on the basis of a perceived
evolution in community values, that the laws prohibiting polygamous and
incestuous marriages were no longer constitutionally justified?" Baxter
wrote at the time.
Ron Prentice, CEO of the California
Family Council and chairman of the ProtectMarriage.com
campaign that put the amendment in front of voters in November said a
constitutional amendment was the "only way for the people to override the
four Supreme Court judges who want to re-define marriage."
The amendment reads: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid
or recognized in
Californians in 2000, with a 61.4 percent vote, approved Proposition 22,
which defined marriage as between one man and one woman. The vote established
the law that was declared unconstitutional by the recent Supreme Court ruling.
In the court's 2008 opinion, George concluded "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."
Homosexual activists said
In a prepared statement, Molly McKay, of Marriage Equality USA, said
"the Grinches and bullies were able to prevail
today" and forecast the coming rejection by Californians of Prop 8.
The organization said the court's conclusion
to allow the marriage licenses issued to same-sex duos makes little sense.
After all, when the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was ratified,
existing slavery was banned, "slave holders could not claim grandfather
rights to own another person," LC said.
"It is time to move on. By a mere 14 words that reaffirm the historic
and common-sense definition of marriage, the people have restored common sense
and the rule of law to
"Political leaders who say that we should give up the battle on
traditional marriage are out of touch with the American people. Our future
leaders must be strong advocates of traditional marriage and family,” he said.