The court’s 4-to-3 decision struck down California state laws that had limited marriages to unions between a man and a woman. It should be noted that the Author of marriage deemed it to be defined as one man and one woman -- NOT Barry and Larry or Joan and Sloane. The true definition of marriage requires the term to mean the union of one man and one woman -- no matter what the California Supreme Court says.
California already has a strong domestic partnership law that gives gay and lesbian couples nearly all of the benefits and burdens of heterosexual marriage. The slim majority said that is not enough.
"Given the historic, cultural, symbolic and constitutional significance of the concept of marriage," Chief Justice George wrote, "the state cannot limit marriage to opposite-sex couples." What a liberal moron! Historically, marriage has meant a man and a woman joining each other in holy matrimony. Symbolically, there has NEVER been anything other than one man and one woman symbolizing marriage. Constitutionally, there is no concept of marriage, other than that given by the Judeo-Christian values of the forefathers of the United States -- and they would NEVER have allowed such an unholy union to be called marriage.
Yet, Justice George and his ilk thought it their place to redefine marriage and guarantee the decadence of homosexuality a proper place in Californian society -- even after the citizens of California had voted AGAINST gay and lesbian unions being defined as "marriage". California’s ban on same-sex marriage was based on a law enacted by the Legislature in 1977 and a statewide initiative approved by the voters in 2000, both defining marriage as limited to unions between a man and a woman.
Conservative groups have proposed an initiative to amend the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage. If it is allowed onto the ballot in November and approved by the voters, today’s decision would be overridden. The groups have gathered more than a million signatures on initiative petitions and submitted them to the state. Lord, I hope the citizens win. Otherwise, California is going to see much more pain, promiscuity, death and suffering as a sure result of the California Supreme Court's ruling on this day.
A dissenting opinion by Judge Marvin Baxter and joined by Judge Ming Chin said a narrow majority of the court had carved a constitutional right out of existing equal-protection laws, overstepping legislative powers in what amounted to "legal jujitsu." A third justice dissented on different grounds. "It 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," Baxter wrote.
“... a bare majority of this court,” Justice Baxter also wrote, “not satisfied with the pace of democratic change, now abruptly forestalls that process and substitutes, by judicial fiat, its own social policy views for those expressed by the people themselves.”Yes, it is a dark day in American history. One we all will regret if the tide of the homosexual agenda is not interrupted. Remember, the ultimate agenda is sex with children, animals, the dead, furniture -- ANYTHING to satisfy perverted desires. May I remind you that means (on the extreme side) torture, mutilation, rape and even necrophilia. The slippery slope started in Massachusetts. The avalanche may have begun today.
If you think these comments are "off the deep end", do some research for yourself. The answer is out there -- and many (including health professional) have been warning us for years.
Excerpts from The New York Times