|
The decision of the California Supreme Court Wednesday refusing to wait until after a vote in November on a proposed state marriage amendment to implement its May 15 marriage decision ignored the pleas of millions of California voters and attorneys general from 10 other states to prevent legal chaos.
California Supreme Court Re-Defines Marriage
Activist Judges Overturn People of California: Homosexuals Must Be Allowed to Marry
REACTION
Opponents Vow to Fight California Ruling
Alliance Defense Fund to ask California's Supreme Court to postpone its decision legalizing same-sex " marriage" into effect until after the fall election.
California Ballot Measure will Provide Last Word on Marriage
California voters will hold a referendum on a constitutional amendment protecting marriage in November, and for the first time anywhere in the U.S., the vote will have a direct and immediate effect on homosexual couples who want to marry. The amendment needs a simple majority to pass, and if the voters uphold marriage, their decision will supersede the high court's. There are signs the contest's outcome will be close.
UFI Blog: California’s Supreme Court Declares Marriage Unconstitutional
California’s Supreme Court refused to recognize a “compelling state interest” in traditional marriage. High courts in other jurisdictions, including New York and Maryland, have in fact found a compelling interest for their states to recognize only marriage between one man and one woman. The California court could have done likewise, but chose not to.
World Net Daily: California's 'Judicial Fiat' Condemned – by Judge
"A bare majority of this court, not satisfied with the pace of democratic change, now abruptly forestalls that process and substitutes, by judicial fiat, its own social policy views for those expressed by the People themselves," said the dissent written by Associate Justice Marvin R. Baxter and joined by Associate Justice Ming W. Chin.
National Review: Court Wedded to Activism
Chief Justice Ronald M. George’s majority opinion is as arrogant as it is confused. Never mind that, as his opinion concedes, “[f]rom the beginning of California statehood, the legal institution of marriage has been understood to refer to a relationship between a man and a woman.” Never mind that the very right to marry that he so wildly misconstrues is built on that understanding. Never mind that California voters in 2000 overwhelmingly ratified that understanding by adopting by initiative — by a 61.4-percent majority — the California Defense of Marriage Act.
Human Events: The Danger in Appeasing Homosexual Rights Activists
Former Congressman Ernest Istook writes: "The law was just a plaything to California’s Supreme Court, and the justices twisted logic into a pretzel as they legalized same-sex marriage by judicial fiat."
MORE NEWS ...
California Marriage Amendment Qualifies for General Election Ballot!
Backers of the state marriage amendment have succeeded in qualifying a proposed constitutional protection for one-man/one-woman marriage for the November ballot. Qualification required 1.1 million petition signatures. Marriage is at risk in our state because the California Supreme Court is expected to rule by June 4 on a challenge to the state's marriage law.
California Homeschooling Gets Second Chance
A recent California court order banning homeschooling in the state has been vacated, World Net Daily reports. The judges who issued the ruling will hear further arguments on the status of parents who want to teach their own children. The ruling stemmed from a juvenile proceeding that already had been closed by the court when court-appointed attorneys for the children of Phillip and Mary Long appealed in an attempt to ban homeschooling. The ruling from Appeals Court Judge H. Walt Croskey granted the attorneys' wishes. Read more
|
