Thursday, May 15, 2008

Calif. paves way to gay marriage

The court also struck down section 308.5, which was added by voters in 2000, that says, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

Coming to your state...Once again black robed renegades snub their nose at the Constitutional separation of powers and legislate from the bench!
Hopefully this promotion of the homosexual agenda from the bench will backfire as it will surely galvanize traditional marriage supporters in their efforts to get a marriage measure on the November ballot in
California.

Dear heavenly Father, please heal our land...

May 15, 2008
By Cheryl Wetzstein
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080515/NATION/786810199/1001&template=nextpage

- The California Supreme Court has ruled that state marriage laws are unconstitutional, opening the way for gay marriage in the state. The "language of section 300 limiting the designation of marriage to a union 'between a man and a woman' is unconstitutional and must be stricken from the statute," the seven-member court ruled in a 4-3 decision.

The designation of marriage must be made available to opposite-sex and same-sex couples, it said in a 121-page opinion written by Chief Justice Ronald L. George. The court also struck down section 308.5, which was added by voters in 2000, that says, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." The court then remanded the issue back to the Court of Appeal "for further action consistent with this opinion."

"Today is a day I will never forget," Geoffrey Kors, executive director of Equality California, said in an email minutes after the decision was released at 10 a.m. PDT. "It is with unimaginable joy that I write to tell you that the California Supreme Court just ruled in our favor, declaring that each of us has the freedom to marry the person we love," he wrote.

The court has "engaged in the worst kind of judicial activism today, abandoning its role as an objective interpreter of the law and, instead, legislating from the bench," said Matt Barber, policy director for cultural issues at the Concerned Women for America.

The decision galvanizes a political battle in California — traditional marriage supporters are making headway in their efforts to get a marriage measure on the November ballot. The measure would put the words "Only a marriage between one man and one woman is valid or recognized in California" into the state constitution.

If passed by voters, the measure could affect the court's decision.

A marriage amendment also is expected to appear on the November ballot in Florida and possibly in Arizona. In the meantime, California is likely to attract thousands of gay couples seeking to marry. Massachusetts legalized gay marriages in 2004. However, a state residency law, which says out-of-state couples cannot marry if their marriages would not be recognized in their home states, discouraged out-of-state gay couples from marrying there.

California has no such residency law.

In the lawsuit, In re Marriage Cases, the California Supreme Court evaluated the constitutionality of state marriage laws and found that such laws were unconstitutional. It further said that the current situation in California, in which opposite-sex couples marry and same-sex couples enter a domestic partnership, is unfair. This is because such an arrangement "poses at least a serious risk of denying the family relationship of same-sex couples such equal dignity and respect."

The high court said that "extending the designation of marriage to same-sex couples" would be best.

No comments: