The California Supreme Court today listened to arguments on whether a constitutional amendment approved by voters in November should be allowed to stand after homosexual activists objected to its definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman only.
Supporters of traditional marriage said they were pleased by the tone and direction of the questions and answers.
Voters in California in 2000 adopted a definition of marriage limited to a man and a woman. But the measure was a state law, and the state Supreme Court in 2008 overturned it, essentially instructing that the state create “marriage” for same-sex couples.
The decision was overturned Nov. 4, however, when voters approved Proposition 8, which instantly became a part of the state’s constitution.
Homosexual activists argue the change should have been called a constitutional revision instead of an amendment, a classification that requires legislative approval before it goes to voters.
But the high court already rejected that claim, prior to the election.
Randy Thomasson, president of Campaign for Children and Families, who participated in a friend-of-the-court brief submitted on behalf of traditional marriage, said the arguments pleased him.
He said two of the justices who less than a year ago voted to “invent” homosexual marriages, “seemed to have gotten the message loud and clear, that they have been overruled by the voters.”
 Seven justices in Supreme Court courtroom in Sacramento, from left to right: Associate Justice Carlos R. Moreno, Associate Justice Joyce L. Kennard, Associate Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar, Chief Justice Ronald M. George, Associate Justice Ming W. Chin, Associate Justice Marvin R. Baxter and Associate Justice Carol A. Corrigan |
Thomasson described Chief Justice Ron George and Associate Justice Joyce Kennard as “hard” on those who challenged the rights of voters to change their state constitution.
He described their reaction as “dubious” when an anti-Proposition 8 attorney alleged that homosexual marriage can be derived by the state constitutional provision stipulating that people are free and have inalienable rights.
Thomasson said when the arguments turned to the estimated 18,000 same-sex “marriages” performed in California between the time of the court’s order to create that institution until the November election, the lead attorney arguing for traditional marriage, Ken Starr, suggested that justices should check the plain reading of the amendment when there is a question over its meaning.
The amendment notes that no matter when and where “marriages” are performed, only those between a man and woman are to be recognized or valid in the state.
“Ken Starr did a brilliant job defending our positions, that this was an amendment and people have the right to amend their constitution,”
said Karen England, executive director of the Sacramento-based Capitol Resource Institute
“As a California voter, I hope the court will uphold the sanctity of our state law and the democratic process by ruling Proposition 8 a valid amendment to our state constitution. To rule otherwise would turn our government system on its head and make a mockery of the people’s ability to amend our constitution,” she said.
The Supreme Court vote a year ago to create homosexual marriage was 4-3, so traditional marriage supporters were encouraged two members of the court appeared ready to uphold the amendment.
A friend-of-the-court brief submitted by the Florida-based nonprofit legal group Liberty Counsel suggested invalidating the amendment would “undermine” the role of the people as authors of the constitution.
“The judiciary is but the creature of
the Constitution, and can not judge its creator. It can not
rise above the source of its own existence. If it could do this,
it could annul the Constitution, instead of simply declaring
what it means,” the brief explained.
A decision from the court is expected in the next 90 days.
What is a woman? The answer in Genesis 2 worked for lots of years
Nin Privitera