California Supreme Court Imposes Homosexual ‘Marriage’ on State
LOS ANGELES, May 15, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Today the California Supreme Court imposed, through judicial fiat, so-called same-sex marriage on Californians, thus totally disregarding the sanctity of marriage and the will of the people. In 2000, Californians adopted Proposition 22 to protect marriage and maintain its definition as a union between one man and one woman, and expressly prohibiting the state from recognizing same-sex marriages.
To ensure that marriage is protected and the voice of the people is heard, a constitutional marriage amendment must be placed on the November ballot and national efforts need to be made to generate a federal constitutional marriage amendment. The decision must be removed from the hands of judicial activists and returned to the rightful hands of the people.
This seemingly undemocratic ruling has gravely concerned many prominent members of several family groups across the country. Karen England, executive director for Capitol Resource Institute, stated "The people of California decided eight years ago that marriage in our state will be defined as between one man and one woman. Four arrogant, elitist, activist judges decided that they know better than the people how marriage should be defined."
Ron Prentice, the executive director of California Family Council, warns of the contempt this ruling shows towards democracy, "This shocking decision is a wake-up call for the majority of California’s citizens, whose votes have been rendered worthless by the Supreme Court’s disregard for the democratic system."
The ruling not only incites fear on the ability of the government to uphold the values of the people, but if left unchanged, has severe implications on the foundation of society: the family. Stephen Bennet, Executive Director of Stephen Bennet Ministries and a former homosexual, recognizes the devastating effects that same-sex marriages have on families and especially children, “My immediate concern is for America’s children—children who will be deceived into believing this sinful activity is normal and natural: it is not."
Bennet also fears the same rulings in other parts of the U.S. could become more prevalent: “My state of Connecticut is also ready to make a ruling regarding the exact same issue. I wouldn’t be surprised if Connecticut made their decision today or tomorrow. I could see the headlines: gay marriage imposed on America from Califonia to Connecticut.”
Matt Barber, CWA Policy Director for Cultural Issues, alluded to the upcoming November general election, during which the constitution could be amended to truly represent the hearts of the majority of Californians, "On a positive note, the Court’s decision today will likely serve as a wake-up call to both Californians and their fellow Americans across the country. I’m certain this decision will help fuel a California marriage amendment and re-ignite debate over a federal amendment which would protect marriage as between one man and one woman."
England reiterated the importance of the November Ballot, "We now must focus our energy on passing the Protect Marriage Initiative and place traditional marriage in the state constitution. This outrageous decision will electrify voters and we are certain they will once again choose to protect traditional marriage."
ProtectMarriage.com, a coalition dedicated to defending the sanctity of marriage, has already submitted 1.1 million Californian’s signatures to the Supreme Court, an initiative that should power the proposed amendment to the ballot, which if passed, would see marriage defined once again as the union of one man and one woman.