Dissenting justices called the ruling a ‘startling’ act of ‘legal jujitsu’ that “’oversteps judicial power’

California Supreme Court

By Jan LaRue, Esq.
Culture and Media Institute, May 15, 2008

I was a Californian for 40 years, so I have to ask my former fellow citizens: Are you going to sit by and do nothing while four black-robed despots take away your right to govern yourselves?

By one vote, the California Supreme Court today rejected the expressed will of Californians to limit marriage to a man and a woman.

In 2000, a 61.4 percent majority of Californians passed Proposition 22, which limited marriage to a man and a woman and precluded California’s recognition of same-sex “marriages” consummated elsewhere. In a decision derided by a dissenting California justice as “legal jujitsu,” the Supreme Court majority held that the ban on same-sex marriage is an infringement of the fundamental state constitutional right to marry.

California is now the second state after Massachusetts where homosexuals will be allowed to “marry.” But unlike Massachusetts, California has no law that prohibits homosexual couples living in states that don’t recognize same-sex “marriage” from marrying in the Golden State. The California Supreme Court has opened the door to a legal battle royal across the nation. Homosexual couples will flock to California to marry, return to their home states, and file lawsuits to force the recognition of their Land of Fruits and Nuts marriages—and the destruction of the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act [DOMA].

JUDICIAL ACTIVISM AT ITS WORST: This will always be immoral. California’s highest court has created a “fundamental” marriage right out of behavior — homosexuality — that is fundamentally wrong and destructive. At left is a homosexual male kissing scene as it appeared on the CBS soap “As the World Turns.” Everywhere Americans turn — TV, media, schools, in corporations and the courts — this unhealthy and immoral behavior is being promoted.

California’s highest court has just invalidated California’s Proposition 22, creating a legal “fundamental” right to homosexual so-called “marriage” out of thin air, under the guise of equal protection. We’re reading the 172-page decision — available at http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S147999.PDF — now, but as we suspected, the court’s majority made use of the fact that in California, homosexual couples already have been given most of the same rights as normal couples — including the right to adopt children.

Footnote 72 on page 117 of the California decision is key:

Contrary to the contention of the Proposition 22 Legal Defense Fund and the
Campaign, the distinction in nomenclature between marriage and domestic partnership cannot be defended on the basis of an asserted difference in the effect on children of being raised by an opposite-sex couple instead of by a same-sex couple. Because the governing California statutes permit same-sex couples to adopt and raise children and additionally draw no distinction between married couples and domestic partners with regard to the legal rights and responsibilities relating to children raised within each of these family relationships, the asserted difference in the effect on children does not provide a justification for the differentiation in nomenclature set forth in the challenged statutes.”

National Organization for Marriage California

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
MAY 15, 2008

CONTACT: Elizabeth Ray (x130) or Mary Beth Hutchins (x105), 703-683-5004

NOTE: The California Supreme Court decision is available on the court’s website at: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S147999.PDF

CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT OVERTURNS PROP 22

“National Organization for Marriage-California Will Lead the Fight to Protect Marriage this November,” vows NOM-CA Executive Director Brian Brown

SAN FRANCISCO – The California Supreme Court released its decision today overturning Proposition 22, which had defined marriage as between one man and one woman.

“Thanks to the more than 1 million Californians who signed petitions, these out-of-touch California judges will not have the last word on marriage,” says Brian Brown, executive director of the National Organization for Marriage California (NOM-CA), “California voters will.”

Concerned Women for America

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE, May 15, 2008

FOR MORE INFORMATION: NATALIE BELL

(202) 488-7000, ext. 126

California Supreme Court Betrays “We the People” on Marriage

Washington, D.C. — Today the California Supreme Court imposed, through judicial fiat, so-called “same-sex marriage” on Californians, thus totally disregarding the sanctity of marriage and the will of the people. In 2000, Californians adopted Proposition 22 to protect marriage and maintain its definition as a union between one man and one woman, and expressly prohibiting the state from recognizing “same sex marriages.”

NOTE: the California Supreme Court decision is available on the court’s website at: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S147999.PDF

To ensure that marriage is protected and the voice of the people is heard, a constitutional marriage amendment must be placed on the November ballot and national efforts need to be made to generate a federal constitutional marriage amendment. The decision must be removed from the hands of judicial activists and returned to the rightful hands of the people.

Matt Barber, CWA Policy Director for Cultural Issues [Barber is on the Board of Americans For Truth], said “The California Supreme 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. It’s absurd to suggest that the framers of the California state constitution could have ever imagined there’d be a day when so-called ‘same-sex marriage’ would even be conceptualized, much less seriously considered. If anyone then had suggested the ridiculous notion, early Californians would have laughed their smocks off.

“So-called ‘same-sex’ marriage is counterfeit marriage. Marriage is, and has always been, between a man and a woman. We know that it’s in the best interest of children to be raised with a mother and a father. To use children as guinea pigs in radical San Francisco-style social experimentation is deplorable.

By banning gay rights, Maine could allay the harm done to society by men with ties to our state.

by Michael S. Heath

‘After the Ball’ put forth in 1989 a marketing plan to equate opponents of homosexuality with irrational and hateful bigots. Sound familiar?

The following column by Mike Heath, executive director of the Christian Civic League of Maine and Chairman of the Board of Americans For Truth, appeared in the Maine Sunday Telegram April 13, 2008:

The largest of rivers begins as a small stream. That small stream tumbles and rushes down from the heights, joining other streams and tributaries, until together, they form a great torrent that sweeps away everything in its path.

The ideas that change the world are like rivers. They begin in well-trained minds and merge with other ideas until they become an irresistible force for change – and sometimes, revolution.

One such idea began in the First Parish Church in Brunswick, Maine. There, Harriet Beecher Stowe conceived the idea of a book about the miserable lives of slaves in the South. The novel she went on to write, “Uncle Tom’s Cabin,” spread her ideas far beyond Brunswick, inspiring an entire nation to take up arms against slavery. In the hands of a quiet woman, writing in Maine, a simple idea grew into the cataclysm of the Civil War.

Another earth-shaking idea can be traced back to Maine, and that is the sexual revolution. This idea has proven as deadly as Harriet Beecher Stowe’s idea was wholesome and life-giving.

The sexual revolution takes its name from a book written by Wilhelm Reich in 1929, called “The Sexual Revolution.” Another title for Reich’s book was “Sex in the Culture War.”

Reich maintained that the ills of the world could be cured by eliminating conservatism, love of country and respect for authority. The best way to do this, Reich believed, was to undermine sexual morality. For Reich, and many others on the left, the sexual revolution was only a way station on the road to real revolution.

American Family Association of Pennsylvania

http://www.afaofpa.org

NEWS RELEASE

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: May 14, 2008

CONTACT: Diane Gramley 1.814.437.5355 or 1.814.271.9078

Too Many PA Legislators Bow to Pressure from 2.9% of the Population

(Harrisburg) On April 30th the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), a Washington, D. C. homosexual lobby group, released a study entitled, “Findings from the Hunter College Poll of Lesbians, Gays and Bisexuals,” which was commissioned by the HRC Foundation. The findings of 2.9% of the adult population identifying as gay, lesbian or bisexual once again expose the lie that homosexuals make up 10% of the U.S. population. The American Family Association of Pennsylvania (AFA of PA), a statewide pro-family organization, is providing this information as well as additional information to each Pennsylvania legislator.

Concerned Women for America, May 13, 2008
By J. Matt Barber

Take Action

Don’t let this egregious and discriminatory action by the University of Toledo be ignored. Please contact University of Toledo President Lloyd Jacobs and respectfully request that he immediately reinstate Crystal Dixon (pictured at left) and issue a public apology to her, the African-American community and to Christians worldwide. (e-mail: UTPresident@utoledo.edu or phone him at 419-530-2211 / Fax: 419-5304984)

____________

The University of Toledo (UT) has sent a message: African-American Christians need not apply.

The University of Toledo (UT) has sent a message – loud and clear – to potential employees and students: African-American Christians need not apply.

UT President Lloyd Jacobs has betrayed his own anti-Christian bigotry and intolerance in what amounts to a prima facie violation of the U.S. Constitution, Ohio’s state constitution and Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Recently, Jacobs, who portrays himself as a bastion of “tolerance” and “diversity,” overtly and shamelessly discriminated against Crystal Dixon, a black, Christian employee, because of her constitutionally protected, factually based and popularly held viewpoint relative to — ironically — civil rights. Understandably, many in the Christian and African-American communities are outraged.

Dixon, who was Associate Vice President of Human Resources at UT, has been arbitrarily fired from her job because she publicly defended the integrity of African-American civil rights struggles and further expressed her sincerely held religious beliefs relative to those struggles.

Cybercast News Service reports:

College Official Fired for Column on Homosexuality
By Pete Winn
CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
May 12, 2008

(CNSNews.com) – Cybercast News Service has learned that a University of Toledo administrator has lost her job because she wrote a newspaper commentary that questioned whether homosexuality is a civil rights issue.

Crystal Dixon, the associate vice president of human resources at the state university, had earlier been put on paid administrative leave for the Apr. 18 column published in the Toledo Free Press, as detailed in a previous CNSNews.com report.

“She has been fired,” said Brian Rooney, spokesman for the Thomas More Law Center, an Ann Arbor, Mich.-based legal-defense group which is representing Dixon.

Rooney told Cybercast News Service that the university had offered Dixon “another position, in a different part of the university, not in human resources” because she had argued in her editorial that sexual orientation is not an immutable characteristic like race or sex and should not be afforded the same protection under civil rights laws.

“She said no, that’s when she was fired,” Rooney said. “We are going to do everything we can within the law to try to show that the firing was improper and potentially illegal.”

Click HERE to read the entire CNSNews article