By Lawrence Jones
Christian Post Reporter
Thu, Dec. 04 2008 08:19 AM EST
Two California lawmakers and openly gay members of the Legislature have introduced measures supporting the repeal of Proposition 8.
On Tuesday, state Sen. Mark Leno and state Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, both Democratic lawmakers from San Francisco, introduced concurrent resolutions that seek to put the California Legislature on record opposing Proposition 8, the state constitutional ban on same-sex marriage approved by 52 percent of voters last month.
The bills argue that the measure, which amended the California Constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman, was an illegal "constitutional revision" that should have been passed by two-thirds vote by both houses of the legislature before being submitted before voters.
But backers of the controversial measure contend it was an amendment that was legally enacted through the state's initiative process.
The non-binding resolution would put the state's lawmakers on record in support of arguments made in the lawsuits challenging Proposition 8.
Legal experts have said the resolution will unlikely affect the ruling by the California Supreme Court, which has agreed to hear the case in Spring 2009.
"This is the court's decision, not the Legislature's, just as whether you balance the budget is the Legislature's decision and not the court's," said Jesse Choper, the Earl Warren Professor of Public Law at UC Berkeley's School of Law, according to The San Francisco Chronicle.
Supporters of Proposition 8 accused the lawmakers of “grandstanding for the cameras.”
“You’d think that these legislators would be focused on resolving the budget deficit or improving the economy," said Ron Prentice, chairman of ProtectMarriage.com, which headed the Yes on 8 campaign. "Instead, they seem more interested in grandstanding for the cameras and thumbing their noses at voters who enacted Proposition 8 by a nearly 600,000 vote margin."
A new poll by the Public Policy Institute of California found that the measure received its strongest support from evangelical Christians (85 percent) and Republicans (77 percent).
Andrew Pugno, general counsel of ProtectMarriage.com, said he was confident Proposition 8 will be upheld.
"The Court is not swayed by meaningless legislative resolutions that have no bearing on the outcome of the court challenges," said Pugno. “This resolution adds nothing to the debate about the validity of Proposition 8."
The bills introducing the resolutions were supported by the LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) Legislative Caucus and several gay rights groups including Equality California, which is behind one of the three lawsuits challenging the measure.
Forty-four state lawmakers have filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of lawsuits seeking to overturn Proposition 8. The three individual cases are Strauss v. Horton, Tyler v. Horton, and San Francisco v. Horton.
California Attorney General Jerry Brown and lawyers for the Yes on 8 campaign have until December 19 to submit arguments to the state Supreme Court explaining why the measure should be upheld.
In May, the California Supreme Court overturned a 2000 state law banning same-sex marriage. The passage of Proposition 8 reversed the court's ruling.
In addition to determining the validity of Proposition 8, the court is also expected to decide the fate of some 18,000 same-sex marriages that took place in the state.
Copyright 2008 The Christian Post. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Featured Article
Thursday, December 04, 2008
Homosexual Legislators Introduce Resolutions Opposing Prop. 8
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
There should not be a vote for civil rights.
As long as gays pay taxes..they should have the same rights and benefits as straights under the government.
As far as people being happy about churches losing tax exempt status..this is because churches continually poke their nose into the business of politics and because they abuse their patrons who are doling out money by spending church donations on houses and cars for priests.
Unfortunately for you folks, the “people having spoken” is never the final word. The constitution of a country exists often precisely for the purpose of protecting minorities against majorities.
Gay unions are coming; it is a matter of when, not if. Countries around the world are legalizing it. It is just a shame that the country that sees itself as a moral leader, a country that was a leader in democracy, woman’s rights and abolishment of slavery is so lacking in this regard.
Anonymous 2:35, homosexuals already have the same civil rights as everyone else, along with the same benefits. They are free to marry someone of the opposite sex, just as heterosexuals are, and when doing so, obtain the same health, etc. benefits.
They do not have a right to redefine a fundamental human institution and counterfeit that institution. Marriage can only be between a man and a woman.
Churches have been tax exempt since the dawn of our country because they provide one of the most vital--if not THE most vital--public services any society can have: moral training and education. Without instilling objective moral values in a society, that society would quickly degenerate into moral chaos and a tremendous loss of freedom. What's more, most of the things we call "political" are really moral in nature, and thus fall within the direct purview of the moral conscience of a people.
Anonymous 2:36, homosexual unions might be coming...or they might not. It may just be that people are waking up to the radical agenda being foisted on society by homosexual activists, and aren't going to pander to political correctness anymore. If Prop 8 passed in one of the most liberal states in the Union, that's a pretty good sign that the rest of the country isn't going to put up with the counterfeitng of marriage, either.
America always has been a leader in not only freedom but moral strength. If the trend from California's passage of a marriage protection amendment--and the other 29 states that have already done so--continues, there may be hope that we will continue to set a moral example for the world to follow.
Lord knows the world needs one.
I've noticed something interesting when conservatives talk about the Prop 8 results. They hold up the majority they got as if it's the gospel and no one can dispute the "will of the majority." But a majority of South Dakotans have voted against an abortion ban. Twice and by a bigger margin than the Prop 8 result. But are you guys going to abide by the "will of the majority" in that case? From what I hear, no you are not. I've heard talk about going through the legislature which would bypass the "will of the majority".
So I think you only care what the majority says when it agrees with your issue. If the majority votes a different way, you ignore or dismiss those results.
Just something interesting I noticed.
I can't speak for the other pro-lifers, but here's how I see it.
First, the will of the majority in Calif. affirmed a moral and societal good while the will of the majority in SD and the abortion ban rejected a moral and societal good. We will therefore continue working within the legal and governmental system to end the killing of unborn children, much like the abolitionists continued working to free the slaves even though the will of the majority continually rejected that for decades.
Another difference here is that the "will of the majority" in Calif. reaffirmed what was already the will of the majority, and what was legal. The people of Calif. voted in 2000 to specifically state what used to be common sense: that marriage is between a man and a woman. Judicial oligarchs usurped the role of the legislature and the people by manufacturing law in May 2008, and Prop. 8 undid their judicial activism. That is another reason why the Prop. 8 victory is celebrated by conservatives--the will of the people triumphed over illegal judicial activism.
Finally, while you see homosexual activists in Calif. calling black people "niggers", assaulting old ladies, stealing and vandalizing private property, burning holy texts on church doorsteps, and calling for violence against people who voted for Prop. 8...you don't see this same vile behavior from the pro-life community who lost here in South Dakota.
Just something interesting I noticed.
Mr. Ellis, I was curious what you meant by 'redefining marriage'?
Marriage has been continually redefined throughout history. For most of human history, marriage was a financial arrangement, not much more. You might fall in love with the person you marry if you were lucky. Marriages were arranged by parents, usually fathers.
In the 1800's, the United States was on the leading edge of redefining marriage. People here began to marry because they were in love, not just because it made financial sense to or because it was what was expected of them. They chose to marry whom they pleased, not who someone else wanted them to.
But there were still lots of restrictions. In was socially unacceptable to marry someone of a lower class than you and it was legally unacceptable in most states to marry someone of a different race. The parents of the next President of the United States could not legally marry in most of the United States when he was born.
But marriage was redefined again. In 1948 in the case Perez v. Sharp, the California Supreme Court ruled that, "marriage is a fundamental right and that laws restricting that right must not be based solely on prejudice." All bans on interracial marriage were struck down 19 years later in Loving v. Virginia. The Supreme Court held, "Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."
This idea was extremely unpopular. In fact many people considered interracial marriage to be sinful. The overturning was cited as an example of judicial activism, because approval of bans on interracial marriage was often in the 70 to 80% range. But the fact that so many people approved of it does not make it right or moral, or constitutional.
Marriage has been redefined throughout history. The notion that marriage as it currently exists in the United States is the way marriage has always been is shown to be utterly false if you examine history. There is no reason to think that marriage will stop being redefined now.
I think this is very much a generational issue. Almost noone I talk to above 40 even gives any thought to this issue. They simply say no, regardless of political affiliation. But it is the exact opposite with people under 25 or so. To my generation, the notion that some people can marry who they love while others can not seems deeply unfair. The idea that a simple majority can tell people they will never meet who they can and cannot marry seems utterly ridiculous. I think it is safe to say that bans on gay marriage will not last in the United States past 2030 or so.
I would say even sooner than 2030, Braden. Every time same-sex marriage bans are on the ballot, the yes/no discrepancy gets smaller and smaller. Same-sex marriage WILL become a reality in the United States, and future generations will look back on us with disappointment at how ridiculous this entire debate has been. If three percent of the population wants their relationships legalized, I say let them. There are countless more important things to worry about.
Anonymous 3:39, if America's moral fiber continues to go down the toilet, that prediction may turn out to be right.
But many of us--perhaps an even growing number, as the radical homosexual agenda becomes more transparent--are not only going to fight the erosion of public morality, but are working to educate the public of the importance of morality. If America goes down into the cesspool of historical decay, it won't happen without a fight...and we might just succeed.
There is almost nothing more important than marriage, family, and the moral fiber of a society.
Braden, various aspects concerning how marriage is enjoined and carried out have changed over the millennia. But the institution itself and what it takes to comprise one has never changed. Marriage always has been and can only really be between a man and a woman.
You can eat an apple many different ways; you can eat it raw, slice it up, peel it, cook it in a pie, and many other methods...but it's always an APPLE that you're eating. Only a joker, liar or someone who was insane would hand you an orange and tell you to enjoy your apple.
The reason so many young people lack fundamental moral discernment on this (and other) issues is that my generation and one or two before that have been derelict in providing moral instruction to them. Since the baby-boom generation, parents have been too self-centered to PARENT, opting instead for the illusion that either the government will teach children all they need to know (the same government that has for the past 50 years begun to declare war on Christianity and objective morality in general), and even if govt doesn't, oh well, they'll get by.
Human beings are born with a corrupt nature and have to be taught and trained through education and discipline what is right, and the importance of doing what is right. Liberals lack the fundamental understanding of this truth, but it is a central truth nevertheless.
Just as this generation is having a hard problem with fundamental realities, as well. They can't seem to get it through their heads that even if the majority calls an orange an apple, it's still going to be an orange...and it's just not going to work right in an apple pie.
So yes, your generation has been neglected, and deprived of the moral training every generation deserves. Yet we are all responsible for our own behavior, so while you're behind the curve, it's never too late to take charge of your own moral education. Best sooner rather than later.
Wow. With over 400 posts regarding homosexuality, it seems to me that you are a homosexual yourself, Bob. Tell me, which rest stop do you frequent by the interstate?
I must be an abortionist, too, since there are over 500 posts on that subject. And homosexual activists claim Christians are prejudiced...
Maybe I cover the issue a lot because homosexual activists are attacking marriage, family and the moral fabric of society a lot of times, in a lot of places, and these are some of the most important things our society needs to protect.
Is it homosexuals in general who bother you, Bob, or just homosexual activists? What's the difference anyway?
Anonymous 8:39, homosexual behavior is immoral and unhealthy regardless of whether one is an activist or not, so it bothers me that there are some folks caught up in this behavior who are damaging their bodies and souls.
But homosexual activism bothers me more. While general homosexual behavior is mostly only hurting the one performing it and any others they may be encouraging to enter or remain in that lifestyle, homosexual activism attempts to tear apart the moral fabric of our society, attacks sexual responsibility, sexual normality, marriage, family, and often the freedom of businesses and religious institutions. So much more damage is done by activists than by those who simply choose to engage in the behavior without demanding acceptance and accommodation of it from society.
Ok, but I'm still confused. Does this mean that every single gay couple who applies for a marriage license in Massachusetts or Connecticut is an activist? One can attain legal benefits without making a political statement or restricting other people's rights, you know. Me, I couldn't care less about most of the things these gay activists demand. But if same-sex unions become legal in my state, I'll definitely get one because that's what's important to me as an individual. Does that make me an activist too? Does that mean I'm also guilty of trying to corrupt society?
Anonymous 12:57, though when I used the term "activist" I was primarily talking not so much about those taking advantage of the activism of others but those who are responsible for most of the advocacy, I suppose every homosexual who applies for a license to call their union "marriage" could indeed be considered an activist, because in doing so they would be contributing directly to the assault and devaluing of marriage, and upon the moral fiber of society.
Post a Comment