by Matt Lacy –
Following the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejection of an appeal that overturned California’s constitutional amendment declaring marriage to be between a man and woman, the issue finally appears to be headed for the United States Supreme Court.
“It’s not surprising that only three of the 25 judges who could have voted for the rehearing voted in favor of the rehearing,” Dean Broyles of the National Center for Law and Policy says. “Now it’s only a question if whether the case goes before the U.S. Supreme Court.”
In February, a three-judge panel ruled 2-1 that Proposition 8 which issued a simple statement that the state would only recognize marriages that were between and a man and a woman unfairly targeted a minority group, and declared the constitutional amendment unconstitutional.
Following the constitutional amendment’s passage, homosexual activists threatened violence against individual voters who voted for the measure. Some of the threats were:
The issue has been winding its way through courts since voters approved the amendment in November 2008.
In 2010, Judge Vaughn Walker, an open homosexual ruled that despite California giving same-sex couples the benefits of marriage, “gay” couples were entitled to the name “marriage” in order to gain acceptance by the general public.
Walker said that limiting marriage to a man and a woman was an “artifact of a foregone notion that men and women fulfill different roles in civic life.”
Walker admitted that California’s domestic partnership laws provided same sex couples all the benefits of opposite sex couples, however he said that was not good enough because domestic partnerships “do not provide the same social meaning as marriage.” Walker also said “marriage is a culturally superior status compared to a domestic partnership.”
“That the majority of the California voters supported Proposition 8 is irrelevant” he went on to say “parent’s genders are irrelevant to children’s developmental status.”
After supporters of the amendment appealed the decision, former governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and then attorney general Jerry Brown stated they would not defend Prop. 8 in court.
This caused supporters of Prop. 8 to argue that they should be permitted to defend the amendment themselves since the state would not. Homosexual activists argued that if the state chose not to defend a law, then no other group should either.
California’s high court disagreed, saying that the amendment sponsors could defend it stating that if they were not allowed to do so, the government could simply overturn any voter approved initiative by simply refusing to defend it.
“Neither the Governor, the Attorney General, nor any other executive or legislative official has the authority to veto or invalidate an initiative measure that has been approved by the voters.”
The court noted that if they had ruled the other way then politicians could effectively overturn initiatives involving campaign contributions or term limits by simply declaring they would not defend it.
The issue continues to be a contemptuous one revealing a sharp divide between the Republican and Democratic parties on the issue.
Mitt Romney, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee has publically stated that he believes that marriage is intended to be between a man and a woman.
After years of supporting same-sex benefits for homosexuals, president Obama recently “came out of the closet” and indicated that he fully supported and endorsed same-sex marriage.
In a good-faith effort to find compromise on the issue, some states have offered civil unions to provide same-sex couples with the benefits they claim they are lacking. Following these efforts, same-sex couples insisted having equal benefits is not enough but that they are entitled to change the definition of the word marriage to accommodate them.
A bill that would have granted civil unions to same-sex couples was defeated in the recent legislative session. While the bill was still being debated homosexual activists were decrying the bill as not going far enough.
The Greeley Tribune editorial board called upon voters to repeal Colorado’s amendment affirming traditional marriage saying that while they supported the civil union bill, it was inadequate and called it simply a “first step into granting full rights to same-sex couples.”
© 2010 - 2013 Northern Colorado Gazette , PO Box 6, Greeley CO 80632 • All Rights Reserved •
|Powered By Zera Communications||Follow us|