from Family Research Council.The weekend gave many of us an opportunity to digest last week's thunderous attack on traditional marriage in California's high court. While we are no more comforted by the decision, it does provide some crucial insight into this radical agenda. It is clear now that the homosexual movement will not accept some middle ground. Domestic partnerships are a way station toward the destruction of marriage. The other side is cleverly using these stepping stones as a way to soft sell social moderates on their agenda.
So far, the tactic appears to have worked on California's Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R). In applauding the ruling, he managed to insult the intelligence of voters on both sides of the issue by saying, "When the people vote, the people are not legal experts, constitutional experts, or any of that. I think that's why we have the courts. People may vote with good intentions, but then the court says, 'This is not constitutional.'"
Fortunately, not every member of the court agreed with Conan the Barrister. In the dissenting opinion, the three justices who voted against same-sex "marriage" shared their disgust at the majority's political agenda. Equating the court's decision to "legal jujitsu," Justice Baxter writes, "...[A] bare majority of this court, not satisfied with the pace of democratic change, now abruptly forestalls [the democratic] process and substitutes, by judicial fiat, its own social policy views for those expressed by the People themselves... [The majority] simply does not have the right to erase, then recast, the age-old definition of marriage, as virtually all societies have understood it, in order to satisfy its own contemporary notions of equality and justice."
In addition to California, Florida voters have the chance to enshrine the definition of marriage in their state constitution this November. Voters in Arizona, Delaware, North Carolina, and Iowa could have a similar chance if they persist in contacting their leaders and encouraging them to pass the amendments out of their state senates.
Is this the same Governor who did not want to override the wishes of the people of California and vetoed a gay marriage bill in 2005?
"The former actor said this was a "constitutional issue" that should be decided by voters and the courts. The bill vetoed by Mr Schwarzenegger said marriage was a civil contract between "two persons".
"I do not believe the legislature can reverse an initiative approved by the people of California," Mr Schwarzenegger wrote in a statement.
"The former actor said this was a "constitutional issue" that should be decided by voters and the courts. The bill vetoed by Mr Schwarzenegger said marriage was a civil contract between "two persons".
"I do not believe the legislature can reverse an initiative approved by the people of California," Mr Schwarzenegger wrote in a statement.
What happened to the wishes of the people?
HT BBC News
President Bush and the US bishops voice their dismay over the ruling here.
Even the Holy Father mentioned homosexual marriage specifically without mentioning California, but his timing was noted by the media. "The union of love, based on matrimony between a man and a woman, which makes up the family, represents a good for all society that can not be substituted by, confused with, or compared to other types of unions," he said.
HT Reuters
This sounds like the perfect time for Cardinal Mahony to step up to the plate. We're praying for you, Cardinal, THIS is your moment to do the right thing!
No comments:
Post a Comment