Voters in California have rejected the opinion of four justices on their state Supreme Court who created homosexual “marriage” in May, approving a constitutional amendment that means from this point on only marriage between one man and one woman is “valid or recognized” in the state.

Proposition 8 was approved by a margin of several hundred thousands votes, or 52 percent to 48 percent, according to state officials.

The verdict comes just months after the May ruling from the state Supreme Court that “created” the state designation of “marriage” for same-sex couples. State officials even rewrote marriage licenses to designate “Party A” and “Party B” instead of “bride” and “groom.”

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

That, however, has been thrown out by voters, although several political leaders and “gay” couples already have announced plans to challenge the now-constitutional definition of marriage as “unconstitutional.”

In other elections yesterday, Florida and Arizona also approved “gay” marriage bans for their state constitutions, raising to 30 the number of states where voters have embedded protections for traditional one-man-one-woman marriage in their constitutions.

Matt Barber, director of cultural affairs with both Liberty Alliance Action and Liberty Counsel, called the results a “mandate.”

And he said, through the votes, Americans were condemning “the rampant judicial activism which has forced the silly and oxymoronic, though very harmful, notion into popular lexicon.”

“Although president-elect Obama has indicated his opposition to both the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and all constitutional marriage protection amendments, this election proves that he is sorely out of step with the American people on these issues. … The passage of these three state constitutional amendments is an indicator that Obama, who has pledged full support for every single demand of extremist homosexual pressure groups, must recalibrate his far-left positions on these and other social issues if he wishes to be an effective leader,” he said.

“The institution of legitimate marriage is a cornerstone of any healthy society. If you introduce counterfeit money into society, it devalues the dollar. By the same token, if you introduce counterfeit ‘gay marriage’ into society, it devalues the institution of natural marriage. President-elect Obama owes his African-American supporters and the rest of America assurances that he will work to protect the cornerstone institution of legitimate marriage and reject the free-speech killing, religious liberties chilling agenda of the radical homosexual lobby,” Barber said.

San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera has promised to challenge Proposition 8, the Associated Press reported.

The report also said the first lesbian couple “married” in Los Angeles County also will argue the new provision is unconstitutional.

A commentary at Dakota said the “mess” in California will have to be cleaned up, because of the thousands of same-sex marriages based on the state Supreme Court’s ruling.

“The question will be what happens to these unions that for a time were blessed by official state sanction,” the editorial said.

Randy Thomasson of the pro-family Campaign for Children and Families told WND that issue probably will end up before the state Supreme Court again, although the amendment now states that nothing but a marriage between a man and a woman will be “valid or recognized” in the states.

“I predicted that it would pass by a narrow majority, which it has,” he said. “I will say this: America is in a moral freefall. Consider that in the year 2000, 61 percent of California voters believed marriage is only for a man and a woman. This election, it’s only 52 percent who believe that. That’s a nine-point loss for truth in only eight years.

“Just think what the next eight years will bring unless pastors and other leaders for moral truth become the dominant voices for truth in society. Think what will happen to children of churchgoing parents unless those parents get their children out of the godless government school system and instruct them in the ways of the Lord,” he said.

The goal of advocacy for alternative sexual lifestyles, traditional marriage supporters believe, is a complete and total indoctrination of coming generations of children.

The following video, used by California’s Protect campaign, tells the story of a Massachusetts family who objected to such teachings in a public school after the state, lacking a constitutional protection for marriage, saw judges open wide the door of marriage to same-sex duos.

Meredith Turney, a spokeswoman for Capital Resource Institute, said she was pleased “the people of California basically told these four activists judges, ‘We decided this eight years ago, and four of you cannot define marriage for millions of Californians.'”

The California Supreme Court’s original opinion said same-sex duos should be allowed to marry because retaining the historic definition “cannot properly be viewed as a compelling state interest.”

Joining Chief Justice Ron George in the majority opinion were Carlos R. Moreno, Joyce L. Kennard and Kathryn Mickle Werdegard. Dissenting were Marvin Baxter and Ming Chin. Carol Corrigan wrote a separate dissent.

The pro-“gay” marriage campaigners also vilified the Mormon church in an ad they generated.

It shows fictional missionaries from the church group confiscating rings of two lesbians and tearing up their marriage certificate.

The Most Rev. Stephen Blaire, bishop of Stockton and president of the California Catholic Conference, called the ad “a blatant display of religious bigotry and intolerance.” He said he was dismayed any media outlet would agree to run it.

Produced by the “Courage Campaign Issues Committee,” the video is available here:

In the ad, two missionaries identify themselves as Mormons and say, “We are here to take away your rights.”

They go into the house, take the rings and hunt through drawers for a marriage license, which they tear up.

Rick Jacobs, of the pro-homosexual marriage campaign, told KUTV television in Salt Lake City the ad literally is a message the houses of Californians are being invaded by the Mormon church.

But Scott Trotter, an LDS spokesman, argued members are working with others in a broad-based coalition “in defense of traditional marriage.”

“While we feel this is important to all of society, we have always emphasized that respect be given to those who feel differently on this issue. It is unfortunate that some who oppose this proposition have not given the church this same courtesy,” he said.

In Justice Baxter’s dissent to the majority opinion in California, he raised the specter of chaos soon to come.

“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?” he wrote.

Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.