- WND - http://www.wnd.com -

Pro-marriage groups: 'Don't trust courts!'

Posted By -NO AUTHOR- On 10/07/2006 @ 1:00 am In Front Page | Comments Disabled

“Don’t trust the courts” is what supporters of traditional marriage are saying, even though a new California appellate court decision affirmed the definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman.

That definition, after all, could be redefined quickly, and the final solution, marriage proponents say, would be a constitutional amendment which is gathering support now, and specifically would prohibit courts from imposing their agendas on the voters.

The 1st District Court of Appeal in San Francisco this week reversed a lower court’s decision that would have allowed marriage to include same-sex duos, upholding Proposition 22, in which voters in 2000 approved by a 2-1 margin the statewide ballot initiative that defines marriage as involving only one man and one woman.

“Judges are not free to rewrite statutes to say what they would like, or what they believe to be better social policy,” said Justice William McGuiness. “Courts simply do not have the authority to create new rights, especially when doing so involves the definition of so fundamental an institution as marriage.”

However, the organization VoteYesMarriage.com said it is likely that the case now will move to the California Supreme Court, and there already are three justices on that bench who support “same-sex” marriage plans. The solution, it said, is a constitutional amendment defining marriage.

Spokesman Randy Thomasson told WND that while an earlier state Supreme Court opinion said San Francisco did not have the authority to create its own “gay” marriages in a 7-0 vote, the decision to overturn those “marriages” already performed was only 5-2.

That court opinion stopped the issuance of same-sex marriage licenses, and voided those that had taken place. “Gay” groups then sued, and the present appeal stems from that case.

Thomasson said two of the Supreme Court justices, Joyce Kennard and Karen Werdegar, earlier wanted those “marriages” already performed to remain, instead of being declared void. Then Carol Corrigan was added to the court, with the support of homosexual organizations.

“We are one vote away from marriage being destroyed by the Supreme Court,” Thomasson said.

According to VoteYesMarriage.com that additional vote would “complete their plan to destroy traditional marriage and impose homosexual ‘marriages’ in every community in California.”

The new appeals court ruling struck down a decision from Judge Richard Kramer that said limiting marriage to a man and a woman was “irrational.”

Such activism, which Thomasson said also could be expected at the Supreme Court level, must be addressed.


border=0>
San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, who launched the battle over same-sex marriages in California

The case started with San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, who arbitrarily decided to start issuing same-sex marriage licenses to duos. Several pro-family legal groups followed with a lawsuit for which the state Supreme Court ruled the city could not hand out such licenses. A lawsuit by “gay” groups then followed and in March, 2005, Kramer found no reason to limit marriage to a man and a woman.

“The people spoke loudly and clearly to protect marriage when they voted ‘YES’ on Prop 22,” said Karen English, of the Capitol Research Institute. “The Court of Appeal had the wisdom to recognize that this issue had already been decided – and that it is for the people or the legislature to decide this matter, not the courts.”

“We are thankful that the court has put aside politics to uphold the constitution and protect marriage,” said England. “Marriage is a timeless institution that should not be carelessly reconfigured in order to cater to the homosexual community,” she said.

The court’s actual opinion found that: “The six cases before us ultimately distill to the question of who gets to define marriage in our democratic society. We believe this power rests in the people and their elected representative, and courts may not appropriate to themselves the power to change the definition of such a basic social institution.”

Tom Minnery, of Focus on the Family, said the California court now is in alignment with court rulings in Georgia, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York and Washington.

“We call on the California Legislature to respect the will of the voters as expressed in 2000 when they approved Prop 22 to protect one-man, one-woman marriage,” he said.

But Thomasson said while the decision itself is not only right, but good, “this is no time for pro-family, pro-marriage voters to sit on their hands and say the problem is solved.”

He noted in just the past few days, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed into law a plan that will allow same-sex duos to file their taxes under the same categories previously reserved for married couples.

Thomasson is urging support for the marriage amendment now pending in the state.

It is extensive and detailed, and it’s for a reason.

“It protects everything about marriage – marriage licenses, marriage rights, and marriage under law – for one man and one woman,” the group’s website says.



Related special offers:

Get Ann’s latest and hottest book, “Godless: The Church of Liberalism”

“The Marketing of Evil: How Radicals, Elitists, and Pseudo-Experts Sell Us Corruption Disguised as Freedom”

“The Gay Agenda: It’s Dividing the Family, the Church, and a Nation”

“Betrayed by the Bench”

Previous story:

Gov. Arnold ‘terminates’ man-and-woman marriage plan

Mayor faces trial for same-sex marriages

San Francisco mayor defies ‘gay’-marriage ban

60% of polled Americans:
No homosexual marriage

It’s ‘gay’ marriage in Massachusetts

Poll: Massachusetts opposes ‘gay’ marriage

‘Gay’ marriage ruling’s consequences ‘dire’

‘Gay’ marriage ban struck down in Massachusetts

Bush to block ‘gay’ marriage

Poll suggests backlash on ‘gay’ issues

Court strikes down Texas sodomy law

Supreme Court hears ‘right to sodomy’ case

High court to give ‘gays’ their own ‘Roe’?


Article printed from WND: http://www.wnd.com

URL to article: http://www.wnd.com/2006/10/38261/

© Copyright 1997-2013. All Rights Reserved. WND.com.