Lawmakers in California are pursuing their homosexual marriage agenda despite opposition from voters and the governor alike, with a 7-3 vote in the state Assembly’s Judiciary Committee in favor of such a plan, according to critics who battled the same proposal last year.
“Shame on the Democrat politicians for attacking and redefining marriage,” said Randy Thomasson, president of the Campaign for Children and Families, a nonpartisan organization that defends traditional marriage and the family.
“This is an attack upon the voters and our system of government as much as it is an attack on marriage,” he said after testifying before the committee against AB 43. “AB 43 shamelessly violates the California Constitution, which expressly prohibits the Legislature from repealing voter-approved ballot initiatives. This is political arrogance in the extreme…”
The vote included seven Democrats for the so-called “same-sex marriages” and all the Republicans against.
Thomasson had accused AB 43 author Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, of violating his oath of office to defend the California Constitution, which says, “The Legislature may amend or repeal referendum statutes. It may amend or repeal an initiative statute by another statute that becomes effective only when approved by the electors unless the initiative statute permits amendment or repeal without their approval.”
Proposition 22, through which nearly two-thirds of all California voters decided in 2000 to limit marriage to one man and one woman, did not do that, Thomasson said.
Even the California courts have ruled that while the Legislature has control of the subject of marriage, that is subject “to initiatives passed by the voters and constitutional restrictions.”
In 2005, the California Court of Appeals concluded, “The plain language of Proposition 22 and its initiative statute, section 308.5,
reaffirms the definition of marriage in section 300, by stating that only marriage
between a man and a woman shall be valid and recognized in California. This limitation
ensures that California will not legitimize or recognize same-sex marriages from other
jurisdictions, as it otherwise would be required to do pursuant to section 308, and that
California will not permit same-sex partners to validly marry within the state.”
Voting for the homosexual marriages were Dave Jones, D-Sacramento County; Noreen Evans, D-Santa Rosa; Mike Feuer, D-West Hollywood; Paul Krekorian, D-Glendale; John Laird, D-Santa Cruz; Lloyd Levine, D-Van Nuys; and Sally Lieber, D-San Jose.
Voting to defend traditional marriage were Van Tran, R-Garden Grove, Rick Keene, R-Butte and Anthony Adams, R-Hesperia.
“Marriage was created for a man and a woman, a husband and a wife,” said Thomasson. “This natural and sacred institution has always been supported by the people of California. But apparently, the Democrat politicians have no problem destroying the democratic vote of the people.”
He said the only alternative now is for voters to rise up again “to protect marriage for a man and a woman, this time in the California Constitution, far above the reach of corrupt politicians and judges.”
Karen England, executive director of Capitol Resource Institute, said the bill clearly flouts the will of the people.
“Yet again the California legislature has shown that it will arrogantly ignore the will of the people,” said England. “Even though the vast majority of citizens oppose homosexual marriage, radical activists continue to push their agenda.”
Meredith Turney, who serves as CRI’s legislative liaison, said the issue was decided with Proposition 22.
“The governor has made clear, by his previous veto, that he will honor the people’s decision. And yet agenda-driven legislators have decided that they will override the wishes of Californians,” she said.
“Gov Schwarzenegger, regardless of his personal beliefs, has committed to honor the people’s vote and already vetoed a previous homosexual marriage bill,” said England. “So why are radical legislators wasting taxpayer money and time by once again pushing an issue clearly decided by the people?”
“The answers is obvious: they will push their extreme agenda until they get their way,” she said.
Organizers of VoteYesMarriage campaign said it was time for voters to “get off their butts and override the politicians.”
“The corrupt politicians have thrust a sword through the heart of marriage and the heart of the voters,” said former Assemblyman Larry Bowler on behalf of the campaign to raise funds to put a constitutional amendment on next year’s ballot.
“But California voters don’t have to stand for this. They can override the politicians and judges by protecting marriage for a man and a woman in the state constitution. Then these out-of-touch bureaucrats can’t mess with marriage ever again,” he said.
The organization is trying to raise $2.5 million to collect a million signatures to put the issue on the 2008 ballot.
In last November’s 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.
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.