The state Supreme Court in California is allowing voters this November to consider a plan to define marriage as one man and one woman, a move that could overturn the same court’s ruling in May that same-sex duos should be recognized as “married.”

Jennifer Kerns, communications director for Protect Marriage.com, which collected more than 1.1 million signatures on petitions in support of the vote, confirmed that the high court today simply dismissed the pending challenge to having Proposition 8 on the ballot.

“Obviously, the Supreme Court decision delivers a significant blow to our opponents,” she told WND. “It does send a very strong message to our opponents that they won’t be able to evade democracy which is what they’ve been trying to do by going to the court system.

“They’ve been trying to keep the ballot issue away from the people of California,” she said. “The people of California, back in 2000, by more than a 61 percent majority, upheld the definition of marriage [as one man and one woman]. I believe they will do so again.”

Last month Liberty Counsel filed a motion to intervene in the case, asking the court to let the people vote on the marriage amendment. Liberty Counsel represents the Campaign for Children and Families and several individuals.

The court action had been brought by the National Center for Lesbian Rights, Lambda Legal and several other groups against California Secretary of State Debra Bowen, who already had certified the amendment for the ballot.

The amendment states: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California,” and if it is passed, it will nullify the 4-3 ruling of the California Supreme Court issued on May 15 and would ban same-sex marriage in California.

According to Liberty Counsel, “The same-sex marriage advocates were seeking to remove the amendment from the November ballot, erroneously arguing that ‘the rules for revising the California Constitution were not properly followed.’ Their brief claimed that an initiative was not enough to put the amendment on the ballot, since it must also be approved by two-thirds of the legislature. The suit also alleged that petitions for the initiative, which were circulated prior to the ruling legalizing same-sex marriage, were misleading because they stated the amendment would not change existing law and would not have a financial impact on the state.”

“If the people have an opportunity to participate in the democratic process, they will vote for marriage as one man and one woman,” said Mathew D. Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel. “Those who push for same-sex marriage are willing to destroy both marriage and democracy to achieve a selfish result. Marriage between a man and a woman is best for our children and for our country.”

California voters, long pushed by homosexual activists to legalize same-sex “marriage,” in 2000 voted to establish the definition of marriage being between one man and one woman.

However, the state Supreme Court opinion in May overturned that vote of the people – which was established only in law, not in the constitution. The actual “ceremonies” between same-sex duos were launched in June. But the new amendment would establish the one-man-one-woman definition in the state constitution, beyond the reach of activist judges.

Staver told WND earlier those who opposed the issue being presented to the people were out of line.

“They’re suggesting the Supreme Court can rewrite the entire institution of marriage, but people can’t amend the Constitution to go back to its historical definition,” Staver said. “It’s absolutely ridiculous to argue that courts can turn society upside down in 30 days, but the people have no right to define it.”

Ron Prentice, chairman of the ProtectMarriage.com Executive Committee, previously told WND, “The people’s overwhelming support to protect the longstanding meaning of marriage as between a man and a woman has been staggering. The California Marriage Amendment will allow the people of California, not politicians or judges, to reaffirm the definition of marriage by placing it in the Constitution.”

Of 28 states where such an amendment has been considered, voters in 27 states – all but Arizona – have passed the amendment. A Los Angeles Times poll recently reported 54 percent of Californians polled supported the amendment, while 35 percent opposed it. A simple majority of the vote is needed to add Proposition 8 to the California Constitution.


Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.