Nearly two-thirds of all Californians six years ago agreed that marriage is to be limited to one man and one woman, but that doesn’t impress the California Supreme Court, which has agreed to review – and re-decide – the issue.
That leaves a state constitutional amendment as the only way to protect traditional marriage in a state where a number of the justices on the high court have become activists for the “gay” agenda, according to a family values organization.
“Everyone who knows that marriage is for a man and a woman needs to wake up and donate to VoteYesMarriage.com, or else real marriage will be flushed down the drain,” said Randy Thomasson, a spokesman for the pro-family coalition that is sponsoring The Voters Right to Protect Marriage initiative.
That proposal, officials hope, will be on the 2008 ballot.
“The VoteYesMarriage.com constitutional amendment is the only way to stop judges and politicians from destroying the beautiful, natural institution of marriage between a man and a woman. The California State Constitution is the highest law in the land, higher than the Legislature and the state Supreme Court, and stronger than a regular statute,” Thomasson said.
The state had approved, through an initiative, a definition of marriage being limited to one man and one woman in 2000, but the state Supreme Court hasn’t ever ruled on the constitutionality of that limit. In 2004, the justices did agree that the city of San Francisco overstepped its authority by creating new “marriage licenses” for same-sex duos and issuing them. However, Justices Joyce Kennard and Kathryn Werdegar at that point wanted those homosexual marriage licenses to continue, and they both remain on the bench. Then earlier this year, Justice Carole Corrigan, who has supported “gay” marriage, was added to the court.
“The people of California spoke in 2000, and the people’s voice should be heard,” said Senior Counsel Glen Lavy, of the Alliance Defense Fund, which will be participating in the arguments before the court.
“Political special interests shouldn’t trump their voice regarding what’s in the best interests of families and children,” Lavy said. “This is the question the California courts will ultimately be deciding: Who is more important: our children and the voice of the people or politicians and special interest groups?”
The ruling from the California Court of Appeal came in October and said: “Courts simply do not have the authority to create new rights, especially when doing so involves changing the definition of so fundamental an institution as marriage. Judges are not free to rewrite statutes to say what they would like, or what they believe to be better social policy.”
“Activists may desperately try again and again to redefine it, but marriage means one man and one woman,” said Lavy “Everything else is counterfeit.”
There are a total of six combined marriage cases that will be reviewed by the court, officials said.
Former Assemblyman Larry Bowler, R-Elk Grove, said the “writing is on the wall” that the state Supreme Court wants California to become like Massachusetts, which has given formal approval to homosexual marriages.
“While regular folks are preparing to celebrate Christmas, the California Supreme Court and the California Legislature are scheming to destroy marriage and the people’s vote on marriage,” he said. “The only remaining option is for the people to rise up, donate $2 million to place the VoteYesMarriage.com amendment on the California ballot, and pass it to permanently and fully protect marriage from the threat of judges and politicians.”
During November voters in seven more states rejected the idea of “gay marriage” by implementing constitutional amendments that protect the biblical concept of holy matrimony – that is between one man and one woman only.
But legal experts warned afterwards that homosexuals undoubtedly will try to bypass the will of voters however they can.
“When you look at the country as a whole, it’s obvious where Americans stand on marriage. But the battle is not over. The opposition will continue to attempt to bypass the will of the people,” Lavy said at the time.
In the Nov. 7 election, voters in Colorado, Idaho, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia and Wisconsin all adopted such amendments. Colorado voters went even one step further, emphatically rejecting a referendum that would have allowed the extension of benefits to “domestic partners,” a plan that would have created an “alternate marriage” plan for homosexuals.
Lavy endorsed marriage amendments “on both the state and federal level because they are the only way to prevent special interests from using the courts to sidestep the will of the people.”
To date, in 27 out of 28 states where a constitutional amendment to protect traditional marriage has been proposed, voters have adopted it, sometimes by margins as high as 8-1.
Lavy said more information about protecting marriage is available at www.domawatch.org, which stands for Defense of Marriage Act, state laws that also have been used to protect marriage.
States Issues Analyst Mona Passignano, of the Colorado Springs-based Focus on the Family Action, told WND that “gay” marriage supporters are running into a simple problem.
“What they’re running up against is that people just want traditional marriage protected,” she said.
During 2005, Texas and Kansas voters approved marriage protection amendments, and in the sweep of the 2004 vote, 13 states took the same action, including voters in Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, Montana, Oklahoma, North Dakota, Utah, Michigan, Ohio and Oregon who did so on the same night. Missouri and Nevada also voted for the plan. Five other states had done so in earlier elections and another two dozen states have taken the same action, but by statute, not constitutional amendment.