Two Judges in California Court Uphold Marriage - GoFuckYourself.com

baddog · 10-06-2006, 11:58 AM

Disclaimer: This is a cut and paste from an article by the Family Research Council. This is no way should be construed as to be my personal feelings, I am just passing along information.

On Thursday, in a 2-1 decision, the First District Court of Appeal in San Francisco reversed a lower-court ruling that would have allowed same-sex marriages in California. We applaud the attorneys from the Alliance Defense Fund for defending marriage in the California courts. This decision may pave the way for homosexual advocates to put their case before the California Supreme Court. Chairman of ProtectMarriage.com Peter Henderson responded with caution to yesterday's favorable ruling, saying: "We recognize that this is not the end to the debate regarding the definition of marriage in California." It could take another year to see whether traditional marriage is protected as both sides take their case to the high court (although the California Supreme Court could decline to take the case on appeal). The high court decided in 2004 that the 4,000 same-sex marriages San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom allowed were invalid, and that he went beyond the power of his office by doing so. Californians have a long history of debating this issue and it should be put to the voters in the form of a constitutional amendment. The state's Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was supported by a wide majority and easily passed in 2000, but it is simply not enough to fully protect marriage. Voters in South Dakota, South Carolina, Idaho, Colorado, Arizona, Wisconsin, Virginia and Tennessee will decide in November whether or not to define marriage solely as the union of a man and a woman. We hope the "values voters" that came out to vote for marriage amendments in the 20 states that have constitutional amendments will do so again in these eight states. Recent court rulings are encouraging, but this is not an issue that should remain at the tender mercies of unelected judges.

10-06-2006, 11:58 AM	#1
baddog So Fucking Banned Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: the beach, SoCal Posts: 107,089	Two Judges in California Court Uphold Marriage Disclaimer: This is a cut and paste from an article by the Family Research Council. This is no way should be construed as to be my personal feelings, I am just passing along information. On Thursday, in a 2-1 decision, the First District Court of Appeal in San Francisco reversed a lower-court ruling that would have allowed same-sex marriages in California. We applaud the attorneys from the Alliance Defense Fund for defending marriage in the California courts. This decision may pave the way for homosexual advocates to put their case before the California Supreme Court. Chairman of ProtectMarriage.com Peter Henderson responded with caution to yesterday's favorable ruling, saying: "We recognize that this is not the end to the debate regarding the definition of marriage in California." It could take another year to see whether traditional marriage is protected as both sides take their case to the high court (although the California Supreme Court could decline to take the case on appeal). The high court decided in 2004 that the 4,000 same-sex marriages San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom allowed were invalid, and that he went beyond the power of his office by doing so. Californians have a long history of debating this issue and it should be put to the voters in the form of a constitutional amendment. The state's Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was supported by a wide majority and easily passed in 2000, but it is simply not enough to fully protect marriage. Voters in South Dakota, South Carolina, Idaho, Colorado, Arizona, Wisconsin, Virginia and Tennessee will decide in November whether or not to define marriage solely as the union of a man and a woman. We hope the "values voters" that came out to vote for marriage amendments in the 20 states that have constitutional amendments will do so again in these eight states. Recent court rulings are encouraging, but this is not an issue that should remain at the tender mercies of unelected judges.