California Supreme Court upholds only half of Prop. 8

[shikoneko]

California Supreme Court upholds only half of Prop. 8

'An arm and a leg cut off marriage'
California Supreme Court upholds only half of Prop. 8

Sacramento, California -- Today's ruling by the California Supreme Court that some 18,000 homosexual "marriages" are valid, despite the vote of the people to prohibit such legal recognition, has frustrated and disappointed pro-family citizens who voted for true protection of marriage licenses for a man and a woman.

"While it was good that the majority of the justices ruled only man-woman marriages could be performed after Prop. 8 passed, it's wrong and unconstitutional for the judges to permit counterfeit marriages in clear violation of Prop. 8," said Randy Thomasson, president of SaveCalifornia.com, a statewide pro-family organization that has been fighting for natural marriage in California for more than a decade. "An arm and a leg have been cut off the natural institution of marriage in California."

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." Thomasson said, "'Regardless of when...performed' obviously means that pre-existing same-sex 'marriages' are not valid in light of Prop. 8. Why is it so hard to understand what the words 'is' and 'when' mean?"

"The judges have 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," said Thomasson. "This is unconstitutional and unjust. The court's own rules require that the counterfeit marriages be declared null and void. But instead of respecting the clear text of Prop. 8 and by ignoring the clarifying ballot statements, the court has gone with its own feelings and its own social agenda in violation of the judges' solemn oaths to uphold the written constitution. The voters have been handed back an altered ballot."

Today's decision means every homosexual couple that wanted a "same-sex marriage" last year, got one. The decision also means some 18,000 counterfeit marriages will be held out as role models to impressionable children. "By allowing these numerous false marriages to stand, the Supreme Court is holding out to impressionable boys and girls the unnatural role model of homosexual 'marriages'" said Thomasson. "This is not what the people of California voted for. They voted to ensure that the only marriage in California is a marriage between a man and a woman."

The California Supreme Court's own rules depend on ballot arguments to determine voter intent: "In construing constitutional and statutory provisions, whether enacted by the Legislature or by initiative, the intent of the enacting body is the paramount consideration.... We are mindful that the goal of statutory construction is ascertainment of legislative intent so that the purpose of the law may be effectuated." -- In re Lance W. (1985), 37 Cal.3d at 889. Evidence of the legislative or popular intent of an enactment includes not merely the text of the amendment, but also other "indicia of voters' intent," including ballot summaries and arguments. -- Legislature v. Eu (1991) 54 Cal.3d at 504; Lance W., 37 Cal.3d at 888 n.8.

Prop. 8 was approved last fall by 52.3% of the voters. It added Section 7.5 to Article 1 of the California 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.

Source

Comments

Prop 8

[cesy]

So basically, they've managed to make everyone unhappy.

52.3% is not a large margin. I wonder what margins other propositions have had, and whether it's actually statistically significant.

[jennem]

The judges have ignored 1/2 of it because to invalidate legally binding contracts after the fact violates THE GODDAMN CONSTITUTION. You know, that pesky thing called the CONTRACTS CLAUSE.

It was never going to be "all of prop 8." It was going to be this or nothing.

[ex_monologue182]

It's really hard for me to read this article. I still can't even believe people think this way!