Wednesday, June 04, 2008

California Marriage Amendment Qualifies for November Ballot – The People Will Decide

This was welcome news from

"Secretary of State Debra Bowen today certified the eighth initiative for the November 4, 2008, General Election ballot. The measure would amend California’s Constitution to define marriage as a union 'between a man and a woman.'"

This initiative actually started before 4 California Supreme Court justices decided to speak for special interests and legislate from the bench instead of interpreting existing laws as they are appointed to do.

Californians have already made their will known in 2000 when they voted 61% to keep marriage defined as "between one man and one woman", and they have not changed their minds, apparently.

“'The response from the people of this state has been unprecedented in support of marriage’s legacy, by responding with an all-out volunteer signature campaign,' said Ron Prentice, CEO of the California Family Council and Chairman of the coalition sponsoring the amendment. 'We’re so grateful to the over 1.1 million voters who signed the marriage petition in time for the November election...'"

By amending the State Constitution, and I am confident this initiative will pass, we will go a long way to protect this institution that is so utterly important to the survival of our society. This is not a trivial thing at all; Redefining marriage has been tried before in other countries with negative results.

It is also naive to think that this amendment would mean the end of this battle, as those who wish to define marriage for themselves and their personal interests will not stop here. The special interests who want to destroy marriage have proven themselves to be powerful and influential and they will not rest. Nor should those of us in this country who love marriage and want to keep it as it is.

Remember, if you live in a state other then California and are concerned about this issue, stay alert and be informed about this as it is only a matter of time before a similar decision goes before YOUR state.


Mr. Grey Ghost said...

The GOP in NY just filed a suit against repeated adulterer, former drug user and interim governor David Patterson after his attempt to recognize gay marriages from other states the other day which is clearly against NY law. All these libs care about is destroying Christianity.

Bullfrog said...

That situation is part of the danger in all of this; if just ONE state marries a gay couple, that couple will immediately go to court in a different state and ask that their marriage be recognized.

This is why, even though Californians have a chance to vote in November, we are not out of the woods. The same 4 Supreme Court justices who rendered the verdict that banning gay marriage was unconstitutional have also denied a stay of that decision until November.

So basically, as of June 17th, gays will flood the city offices to get their legal marriage, then in November, when California citizens vote to define marriage in the traditional way (and they no doubt will do just that), all of those "married" couples will cry "foul" and anti-traditional marriage lawyers will cite precedent to soften judges who would normally not consider redefining marriage.

It's a bad situation that I fear may not get better...

Dee said...

Awesome news!!

Missouri, along with numerous other states who have already passed Marriage amendments tried to appeal to a California judge to wait to let people get married until after the vote, but the judge denied it.

Other states are very nervous about people attempting to go to California to get married and then attempting to get their own state to recognize it. Technically they aren't supposed to be allowed to do it, but I'm sure there are loopholes.

Dave Miller said...

An amendment to the constitution is the exact way to do this, at east in California.

The Supreme Court disagreed with a law, popularly passed though it was, that they felt was unconstitutional. That is not activism, but rather, good law.

The will of the people cannot be supported if what they want to do is found to be in contradiction to the constitution.

Now, we will have a legal solution, if the people of California want to change their constitution.

And Dee, I completely agree. The court, for the sake of expedience, should have stayed their decision until November.

Bullfrog said...

Dave, help me understand where the Constitution sanctions same sex marriage; even implicitly.

What make this judicial activism is that the justices invented the "right" of anyone to create a family under any circumstances.

Dave Miller said...

I believe the justices felt that the law that had been passed, infringed on the civil rights of gay folks.

It is probably something akin to "they did not like a law that seemed to take away someone's rights."

Maybe it is like this. I am not sure marriage is in the constitution either. But heterosexual people feel they have a right to get married.

Even though it has been our culture and way of life, where in the constitution does it say my wife and I can get married? Where does the constitution define marriage as between a man and a woman?

And so when the people passed a law limiting the rights of a certain group of people, the law was seen as unconstitutional.

Now with a constitutional amendment, the issue should be solved.

Again remember, while the will of the people is good, it cannot be absolute, otherwise we end up with Machiavelli's "might makes right."

Bullfrog said...

Explain how marriage is a civil right.

I believe it is a privilege that should be exclusive to one man and one woman.

Changing marriage to include same-sex couples is more than an arbitrary move. We are not the 1st society to entertain this idea, and it has been harmful in the past when it has been attempted.

This is alot more than simple politics or giving equal opportunity to everyone to express their love and commitment; although or Constitution doesn't explicitly define marriage, the law of God does.

If we toy with marriage and family, 2 things that our Creator holds very dear, what do you think the consequences will be?