Powered by
Movable Type 3.2
Design by
Danny Carlton





Made with NoteTab

April 06, 2005

Judges and legislators fight the will of the people

From AgapePress:

In California, advocates of traditional family values are incensed that an appeals court has determined that a new state law giving same-sex domestic "partners" the same rights as married couples does not violate the state's Defense of Marriage Initiative, which passed overwhelmingly five years ago.

In March 2000, 61 percent of voters in the Golden State approved Proposition 22, which states that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." But on Monday (April 4), the California Court of Appeal, Third District, handed down a 26-page ruling upholding a lower-court decision that stated a new domestic partner law did not violate that measure. The new law bestows upon registered domestic partners "the same rights, protections, benefits, responsibilities, obligations, and duties" as those given to married individuals.

So much for the myth of America as a democracy. While I've never held to the misconception that America is a true democracy, we were intended to be a Constitutional Republic that utilizes the democratic process. But in this case, as in many the Left treat the same way, the will of the few overrule the majority and the democratic process is ignored.

The article goes on to say:

"Judges and politicians who suck all the value out of marriage have trashed the people's vote and cheapened this sacred institution," [Randy Thomasson, president of the Campaign for Children and Families] said. And he contends that back in March 2000, voters clearly understood that Prop. 22 dealt specifically with legal rights of marriage for a married man and woman.

"But now, since judges and Democratic politicians are blatantly attacking marriage and the voters, it's up to Californians to reiterate their support for marriage -- but this time by placing marriage protection in the state constitution," Thomasson adds.

The trouble is that even constitutional amendments are being held hostage to the whims of activist judges who demand the right to “interprit” them in any hair-brained way they want.

In January the Louisiana Supreme Court upheld the constitutional amendment banning homosexual marriage, passed by voters the previous September. A lower court had struck down the vote. Let me repeat that, in case you missed it -- a lower court had struck down a vote of the people regarding an amendment to the state's constitution. The amendment had passed overwhelmingly by a 78 percent to 22 percent margin.

Indiana's Court of Appeals rejected a court challenge to a law forbidding same-sex marriage. In January, the court ruled that heterosexual marriage served a legitimate state interest “in encouraging opposite-sex couples to procreate responsibly and have and raise children within a stable environment.”

Federal District Judge James S. Moody, in January, rejected a demand by two lesbians, who were married in Massachusetts, to strike down a Florida law banning same-sex marriage. Moody also rejected their request that he declare unconstitutional the Federal Defense of Marriage Act, which was passed in 1996 by Congress and signed into law by President Bill Clinton. The law states that no state can be forced to recognize a same-sex marriage performed in another state.

Thirteen states voted to place a same-sex marriage ban in their constitutions. Kansas voters approved a similar constitutional amendment, just yesterday. Similar actions are close to passing in Alabama, Indiana, Virginia and Wisconsin. The proposed amendment in Idaho, though, failed to attract enough votes in the State Senate.

Coverage: The Narrow

Posted by Danny Carlton at April 6, 2005 11:36 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.jacklewis.net/cgi-bin/mt/jl-tb.cgi/864

Comments

Post a comment




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)

Security verification

Type the characters you see in the image above.