Expect California High Court to ‘Half Uphold’ Prop 8: Thomasson

Prop. 8 ruling scheduled Tuesday 10 a.m.

My friend Randy Thomasson (left) of SaveCalifornia.com expects at partial victory for pro-natural-marriage forces on Prop 8 Tuesday. — Peter LaBarbera. Randy writes:

As you’ve probably heard, the California Supreme Court will file its Prop. 8 ruling on Tuesday at 10 a.m. There’s no more praying or influencing you can do to effect the decision, because the seven justices’ opinions are already in writing.

SaveCalifornia.com expects a “half right, half wrong,” convoluted decision that allows some 18,000 homosexual “marriages” performed before Nov. 4 to remain legally valid, but after Election Day permitting the granting of marrriage licenses only to a man and a woman.

Our [Save California] news release from Friday afternoon is below. To be reminded of what the justices said during the Prop. 8 hearing on March 5, click HERE. Full Save California release follows:

_________________________________________

SaveCalifornia.com

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: May 22, 2009

California Supreme Court Expected to ‘Half Uphold’ Prop. 8
Thomasson: “This voters’ rights case, which never should have gone to court, will likely be decided half right and half wrong.”

Sacramento, California — The March 5 hearing on Proposition 8 provided the strongest indication of how the California Supreme Court is going to rule this Tuesday, says a pro-family veteran of the war for marriage in California.

Randy Thomasson, president of SaveCalifornia.com, has been steadfastly defending marriage rights for one man and one woman since 1994. Nearly three months ago at the Prop. 8 hearing in San Francisco, Thomasson was inside the Supreme Court building to witness what the justices said during three hours of oral arguments.

“This voters’ rights case, which never should have gone to court, will likely be decided half right and half wrong,” Thomasson said. “During oral arguments, Justices George and Kennard made it clear that, like it or not, they had to go with the voters, which would put them with three other justices — Baxter, Chin and Corrigan — who upheld man-woman marriage last year. At the same time, nearly all of the judges ignored the straightforward, retroactive effect of Prop. 8, which specified that the only valid marriage in California ‘is’ between a man and a woman, ‘regardless of when’ the marriage was performed.”

“Bottom line,” Thomasson said, “it’s virtually guaranteed that the court will rule that only man-woman marriages could be performed after the vote on Prop. 8, but that nearly four months of homosexual ‘marriages’ performed before the election day will still be recognized. This would be half right and half wrong, not giving the Constitution or the voters the respect they deserve.”

Prop. 8 proponents’ rebuttal arguments in the voter information guide stated: “Your YES vote on Proposition 8 means that only marriage between a man and a woman will be valid or recognized in California, regardless of when or where performed.” “‘Regardless of when…performed’ obviously means that pre-existing same-sex ‘marriages’ are not valid in light of Prop. 8,” Thomasson said. “Why is it so hard to understand what the words ‘is’ and ‘when’ mean?”

Prop. 8 was approved last November by 52.3% of California voters. It added Section 7.5 to Article 1 of the California State Constitution, reading, “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” The vote of the people overruled the California Supreme Court, which, on a 4 to 3 vote, had invented “same-sex marriages” in May 2008.

— end —

SaveCalifornia.com is a leading West Coast nonprofit, nonpartisan organization representing children and families. We stand for marriage and family, parental rights, the sanctity of human life, religious freedom, financial freedom, and back-to-basics education.