A call has been issued for a Day of Prayer and Fasting tomorrow as California begins allowing same-sex "marriages," a law firm is warning that county clerks who do issue such "licenses" will be breaking state rules, and an alarm has been raised that the state will not, under its own new precedents, now be able to prevent polygamy.

The deadline for any sort of judicial restraint that would "stay" the ruling for various issues to be addressed passed today without court action, allowing the licenses to be issued at the whim of county clerks.

The call for prayer comes from Concerned Women for America, which said California's "sweeping decision can be transported nationwide by homosexual couples demanding that other states recognize their California 'marriage.'"

"Prayer is the key to this battle. We need to see hearts changed by God at the same time that we're trying to change minds," said Phyllis Nemeth, state director for CWA of California. "That's why I'm inviting my fellow Californians especially to join CWA in prayer and fasting for our state and our nation."

"CWA was founded on 'prayer and action,'" said CWA President Wendy Wright. "The decision by the California court on same-sex 'marriage' is an affront to God and His plan for marriage and family. It will cause long-term problems and risks for families, churches, and agencies that work with children, and many others – leading to more lawsuits and damaged lives. While many will be working to protect the true definition and meaning of marriage, our first action must be to pray for God to intervene. Please join us in prayer and fasting on June 17."

(Story continues below)

The warning about clerks who issue such same-sex licenses breaking rules comes from Gary Kreep at the United States Justice Foundation, which filed an action in Superior Court in Sacramento, pointing out that, "The Supreme Court did not, and cannot, change the language of California statutes, as such can only be done by the California Legislature."

While the state Supreme Court's May 15 opinion that said the state could not deprive homosexuals of "marriage," it did not address the myriad locations in state law, rules and regulations where "husband" and "wife" are referenced.

"Where an appellate court has made such a determination, as has been done here, administrative agencies, such as [the California Department of Public Health, office of vital records], have the authority to refuse to enforce the unconstitutional statute, but they do not have the authority to unilaterally, and without guidance from the legislature, or compliance with state law, create new rules and regulations," the legal action said.

Those laws referring to "husband" and "wife" "although found to be unconstitutional, have not yet been amended by the California Legislature."

Even had the various agencies the authority to change state law, they didn't even follow their own procedures and policies in doing that, the legal action noted.

Kreep told WND a hearing is scheduled on the issue tomorrow.

Additionally, it was Advocates for Faith and Freedom that announced a campaign to protect county clerks' employees from religious discrimination engendered by the new law.

"Employees of county clerk's offices who have an objection to issuing the same-sex licenses due to their religious beliefs have a constitutional right not to participate in same-sex marriages," the organization announced.

"It has been reported that some county clerks, including the Riverside County Clerk's office, have stated that all employees within the clerk's office must participate in same-sex marriages regardless of their religious views on the subject. We have also received similar information from the San Diego County clerk's office," the law firm said.

"Advocates for Faith and Freedom, together with the Seventh-day Adventist Church State Council, is faxing an advisory letter to California county clerks stating that under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, religious employees have the right to be protected from discrimination in their workplace and are entitled to a reasonable accommodation of their beliefs," the firm said. "This means that employees cannot be forced to participate in same-sex marriages in violation of their religious beliefs."

"Same-sex couples have argued that their personal sexual choices require public acceptance in order for 'equal protection' to exist," he said. But such "equality" cannot be used to violation religious rights.

"This would certainly send a message of official state hostility toward religion, in violation of the Establishment Clause, while also violation basic equality, speech, and religious rights of the employees," he said.

At the Campaign for Children and Families, spokesman Randy Thomasson noted it's only months from now when California voters will decide on a state constitutional amendment that could overrule the Supreme Court, determining that only marriage between one man and one woman is recognized in California.

"The only poll that counts is the one taken on Election Day," he said. "Californians who know marriage is exclusively for a man and a woman, a husband and wife, should plan now to vote to override the judges."

Steve Crampton, of Liberty Counsel, is the one who warned about polygamy being unstoppable. In a commentary on WND, he wrote:

"Although much ink has been spilled over the California Supreme Court decision last month legalizing same-sex marriage, hardly a word has been said about one of its most pernicious and immediate effects: It legitimizes polygamy."

He said with the state Supreme Court's ruling fails to mention civil unions, but the state already grants "rights" for domestic partnerships.

"Accordingly, same-sex couples who first obtain civil unions from, say, Vermont, will soon be allowed to travel to California and enter into marriage – either with or without their civil union partner. Thus, Arnold and Bill might be united in a Vermont civil union, but in California, Arnold may enter into marriage with Cullen, even while the civil union is still in effect. And before his "marriage," Cullen could have united in a civil union with Dan.

"It gets worse. At the same time as these males are coupling, female same-sex couples could have been undertaking similar unions. Ellen may be in a civil union with Feona, and Feona could nonetheless marry Gigi. Gigi may have had a previously conferred civil union with Heidi.

"As if all of that were not enough, under California law as twisted by the state Supreme Court, Heidi could marry Dan, and Ellen could marry Bill, thus completing a circle of "love" among eight individuals, four male and four female, all of whom would have arguable legal rights to all the property owned by any one of them – no matter what state the property is in.

"If this isn't a recipe for disaster, then California is no longer the land of fruits and nuts," he wrote.

It was Liberty Counsel that earlier asked the state Court of Appeal to issue a stay in the Supreme Court's order, because of the coming constitutional amendment election, and for other issues.

Jurisdiction in the case reverted from the Supreme Court to the lower court today, but Liberty Counsel warned of the "mess" that would develop without any restraint.

"Hundreds of laws apply to marriage. The Supreme Court addressed only two," said Mathew D. Staver, chief of Liberty Counsel. "It is inconceivable that by striking down two statutes, the myriad of other marriage laws are automatically changed. They are not. The legislature must act before same-sex marriage is authorized, and the people should be permitted to vote before the legislature acts."

This fall's proposed constitutional amendment is being promoted by the ProtectMarriage.com organization.

The amendment reads: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

In the Supreme Court's majority ruling, Judge Ronald 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."

In Marvin Baxter's dissent to the majority opinion in California, he called the majority logic "legal jujitsu" that "oversteps judiciary power." Another dissent, from Carol Corrigan, said the conclusion simply was "judicial overreaching."

L to R: Carlos R. Moreno, Joyce L. Kennard, Kathryn Mickle Werdegar, Ron M. George participated in the majority opinion declaring a one-man-one-woman limit to marriage unconstitutional. Ming W. Chin, Marvin R. Baxter and Carol A. Corrigan of the California Supreme Court filed dissents

Baxter's dissent raised even further warnings of 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 deeprooted 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?"

---

Related offers:

Get Ann Coulter's, "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 stories:

Follow constitution, 'same-sex marriage' judges told

County clerk cancels civil wedding services

It's voters vs. black robes in November

City clerk suing not to wed 'gays'

County clerks urged to ignore same-sex marriage ruling

'Gay' marriage ruling to spark lawsuits nationwide

Whoa! Marriage laws aren't changed – yet

Supremes asked to give voters a chance

City clerk suing not to wed 'gays'

California battle over same-sex marriage not over

Black robes trash traditional marriage

California's 'judicial fiat' condemned – by judge

Plan pushes for last step in eliminating marriage

Court asked to protect 1-man, 1-woman marriage

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

Gov. Arnold 'terminates' man-and-woman marriage plan

Gov. Arnold says 'marriage' can be terminated

California handing out marriage privileges

'Marriage' to become museum piece

Homosexual marriage minces west to California

Court will decide if California voters were right

Vote or pay us damages, group tells lawmakers

7 more states say no to 'gay marriage'

Same-sex rulings will 'echo' across U.S.

Senate rejects 'gay marriage' ban

California Senate OKs 'gay' marriage

Mayor faces trial for same-sex marriages

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'?