Sunday, October 08, 2006

Pro-Family Groups Hail Calif. Court's Ruling Upholding Traditional Marriage

In a closely watched case challenging California's marriage laws, the California Court of Appeals rejected same-sex marriage in a 2 to 1 decision this past Friday October 6, 2006. The pro-family legal organization Liberty Counsel, representing Campaign for California Families, presented argument before the court.

The majority's opinion stated that the same-sex couples in these appeals were asking the Court of Appeals to "recognize a new right," but that courts simply do not have the authority to create new rights, "especially when doing so involves changing the definition of so fundamental an institution" as marriage. "In the final analysis," the judges stated, "the court is not in the business of defining marriage."
The majority opinion also declared that the lower trial court's decision "essentially redefined marriage to encompass unions that have never before been considered as such in this state." The appellate court's decision went on to state that it is "beyond the judiciary's realm of authority to redefine a statute or to confer a new right where none previously existed."
Mathew D. Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel, was pleased with the California Court of Appeals' ruling. He says the court "followed the lead of other courts around the United States in recognizing that judges should not rewrite marriage laws with the stroke of a pen. The state of California did not create marriage and judges should not redefine it."
The marital union between a man and a woman is a unique relationship, Staver observes, one that "uniquely fosters responsible procreation" and contributes to the continuing well-being of men and women, children, and the state. "To redefine marriage to include same-sex couples would abolish marriage," the attorney contends. "The result," he says, "would be nonsensical and would have devastating effects on children and society."
Marriage Victory Hailed as Great Day for California and the Nation
Pro-family and religious leaders, conservative groups and public policy and legal organizations around the U.S. are celebrating the California Court of Appeals' ruling and applauding those who helped secure the court victory. On hearing of the decision, California attorney Richard D. Ackerman -- who was among the first to sue San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom for authorizing the issuing of same-sex marriage licenses -- remarked, "This is a great day for California and the nation."
Ackerman says while so many courts have failed to respect the system of checks and balances America's founders established, "California proved itself capable of reading the Constitution for what it actually means and was intended to be." He believes the ruling will do much to restore the public's faith in the nation's judiciary, which has lost much respect due to "errant judges wishing to make their own law," he observes.
The California attorney says his state and the rest of the nation owe a great debt of gratitude to Liberty Counsel and its attorneys Mat Staver and Robert Tyler and to the Alliance Defense Fund. These organizations and attorneys, Ackerman notes, took on the issue of homosexual marriage "regardless of being called hateful, intolerant, and the like. ADF and Liberty Counsel saw these battles through to the end."
Another legal group, the Pro-Family Law Center (PFLC), also commended the legal team that argued the case, noting in a recent statement that the ADF and Liberty Counsel attorneys "always saw this as an issue about the democratic process." No state, PFLC asserts, "should ever be controlled by radical activists, like Gavin Newsom, who happen to be in political positions of power."
Traditional Marriage Not Yet Safe, Activists Warn
But although coalition spokesman Randy Thomasson called the California Court of Appeals' ruling "a great decision upholding the right of California voters to protect the natural and beautiful institution of marriage for a man and a woman," he warns that the victory might be short lived. He says the California Supreme Court could still create homosexual "marriages" next year when this case is appealed.
Thomasson points out that the state high court already has three justices who support the notion of same-sex marriage: Judges Kennard, Werdegar, and Corrigan. "They only need one more justice on their side to destroy the time-honored institution of marriage," he says. "Therefore," the California activist continues, "the only certain way to fully and permanently protect marriage in California is to place the amendment on the ballot to override the judges and politicians."
Tom Minnery, Focus on the Family Action's Senior Vice President of Government and Public Policy, agrees that one-man, one-woman marriage in California remains vulnerable, as it does in other states due to the ongoing efforts of activist judges and elected officials to push same-sex marriage, even when the voters have overwhelmingly rejected it.
The California's Court of Appeals' decision upheld traditional marriage, Minnery notes, just as courts in Georgia, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York and Washington have recently done. Thus the California court "demonstrated a proper understanding of the role of courts by declaring that the right to change public policy is the realm of the state Legislature," he says.
But now, the Focus on the Family Action official contends, California lawmakers need to respect the will of the voters as expressed in 2000 when they approved Proposition 22, by protecting one-man, one-woman marriage with a state marriage amendment. Meanwhile, he says Congress needs to pass a federal marriage amendment, to ensure the uniformity of the definition of marriage nationwide.
"Despite these encouraging marriage decisions, marriage cannot remain vulnerable to the whim of judges who could impose their own will on society," Minnery insists. Marriage, he says, must be protected both in the states' and the federal constitution.


Anonymous Kip said...

I graduated from a Baptist high school. I'm heterosexual. Gay marriage isn't a threat to me or heterosexual marriage. It is a threat to people who have superficial values --who think government knows better than individuals who they should marry; who don't know when to make good exceptions to the rule; who think fear is superior to love, commitment, and appreciation; those whose faith is insecure.

Quit being a social hypochondriac and start living with people.
You might like & love gay people (or human beings in general) in spite of yourself.

3:24 PM, October 09, 2006  
Blogger SCIA said...


You said:

"Gay marriage isn't a threat to me or heterosexual marriage. It is a threat to people who have superficial values --who think government knows better than individuals who they should marry;..."

I am not asking the government to decide who should marry whom. Before any government or religion institution was ever established marriage was between a man and a women.

I am asking the government to let those who want to engage in the democratic process to decide the fate of same-sex "marriages" (SS"M")via a vote by the people of the commonwealth.

If courts and judges are to "make" laws, which is not their purpose, then "We The People" need to make sure there is a checks-and-balance via a vote by the people otherwise any hyperactive activist is going to persuade the judicial system to make laws to THEIR benefit and not the benefit of others.

Why is it that less than 4% of the population (homosexuals) get there way because they are "in bed" with the black robes of the courts but the rest of us have to sit back and accept unlawful means when making laws? It is the complete opposite of what democracy should be Kip.

Your comments are based on emotional banter and assumptions of my faith and relationships with others either gay or straight with no facts to refute what I have posted.

In response to you thinking gay "marriage" is not a threat to you then you need to read my June 5th, 2006 post titled "Question: How does same-sex marriage harm our understanding of humanity?"

Try and gain facts to present instead of opinion because then you can engage in some productive civil discourse.

Thanks for stopping by Kip.


9:08 PM, October 09, 2006  
Anonymous CARON said...

I live in we have Gay Marriage and it is under fire..Not for the concept, but for the way it was created. We do live in a state that ALLOWS the People to Speak on Issues..either through Ammendemnts to be voted on..known as referendums and through our elected officials..Our State recognizes Laws Created By the People and Not Laws Made up by the Judiciary. Sadly, the Gay Marriage Supporters decided to Use the Judicial Method to achieve their ends...THE CITIZENS HERE HAVE WAITED LONGER THAN THE IRAQI PEOPLE TO VOTE ON THIS ISSUE...THIS IS AMERICA ..OR SO I THOUGHT.

PEOPLE PETITIONED, WERE THREATENED, UNDER FIRE DAILY, YET THEY GOT THE MOST SIGNATURES in Mass. History to place this question on the ballot..and YET our LEGISLATURE FAILED TO ACCEPT AND VOTE ON IT. IT WAS APPROVED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BEFORE BEING CIRULATED...and our Elected Officials...95% Democrat chose to ignore it..ONCE THE STATE DECIDES WHAT THE PEOPLE CAN VOTE ON..IT CEASES TO BE FREE. Until I received the Obscene phone calls..once my name and address were posted on the GAY internet the GAY Marriage Supporters..I truly had no Hatred for their cause...Now I realize I live in a state where MY VOTE means nothing, where I am only allowed to Vote on what the STATE ALLOWS...WHAT DOES THAT REMIND YOU OF...IN THIS DEMOCRAT STATE..OR BLUE STATE..GUESS WHAT...WE CAN ONLY VOTE ON ISSUES APPROVED BY THE DEMOCRATS! Had the Democrats stood up and voted on a law ALLOWING GAY MARRIAGE it would have been done and over...THEY FAILED ..FAILED MISERABLY..BECAUSE THEY KNOW THEY WOULD NOT BE BACK IN THE STATE HOUSE ...When the GAY Marriage Supporters decided to threaten and frighten people who signed petitions it said all I needed to know... I have made it a habit to sign almost ALL petitions from the People and by the people...very few are rejected by me...YET THIS STATE HAS CHOSEN TO DENY VOTERS AND PETITIONERS A CHANCE TO VOTE...AT LEAST ALL THOSE PEOPLE WHO THINK THEIR VOTES WERE STOLEN HAD A CHANCE TO VOTE..HERE IN MASS. WE DO NOT EVEN GET TO VOTE!

So much for Government by the people...and Democracy! iraqi's went to vote under threat of bombs and bullets...we cannot even VOTE HERE IN MASS.!

9:53 PM, October 09, 2006  
Blogger Ryan Charisma said...

No one should vote on anothers basic rights. Especially if it's a minority. And yes, the gay community is a minority. A fabulous, well dressed, bringing up your neighborhood value, teach your children, decorate your homes, do your hair, heal your ill, fix your teeth and deliver your mail minority, but a minority just the same.

No one.

8:27 AM, October 10, 2006  
Blogger SCIA said...


That was the most passionate piece of LOGICAL and INTELLIGENT commontary that I have read on this blog in a long time.

Damn, that was awesome!! You took the opposition behind the woodshed and filleted the SH**T out of them.

Caron for president ;).

You made my day girl...DAMN!!

Keep up that passion to save democracy in Massachusetts.

GREAT JOB! You deserve a Fillet Minong for that!!



12:08 PM, October 10, 2006  
Blogger Patriot said...

Ryan, SCIA is insane and takes on different personalities, Caron is probably just another in a long list of lies. Enjoy the show.

7:28 PM, October 10, 2006  
Blogger SCIA said...


Do you have any arguments or comments that are NOT based on emotional bantering?

Provide me a challenge so I can engage in some sort of civil discourse with you. Can you do this or do I have to come to the conclusion again, along with Ryan's comments, that you think what I am saying about marriage is correct?

'Dialouge' is something that Mr. Long would want. Practice what you wish to preach.

Thanks for stopping by.

9:08 AM, October 11, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is a very informative post in the comment section of the blog The topic was the "ex-Gay" ministry Exodus International, and the tactics the rhetoric they use.
Liadan asked:

"I wonder if they know they're taking cues from classic name-it-and-claim-it theology-- just replacing "health and wealth" with "heterosexuality."

You can stop wondering. That's EXACTLY how EXODUS began in 1976 -- at the height of the "name-it-and-claim-it", neo-charismatic movement of the 1970's. EXODUS began at Melodyland Christian Center in Anaheim. In huge revival type "healing" services held weekly, congregants were told that WEALTH and HEALTH were their God-given right and that all we needed to do was "claim it".

If we saw a car we wanted, the health/wealth evangelists actually told us to lay our hands on the hood of the car and "claim it for Christ". Those who were struggling financially or how had some terrible physical/emotional ailment were told that they "did not have enough faith" -- or had "unconfessed sin in their lives."

I remember one wonderfully faithful older woman who had been paralyzed since her teens. She came forward to "claim her healing" one Sunday. When she did not get up out of her wheelchair, the visiting "healer" told her (and the entire congregation) that she had "little faith". It absolutley CRUSHED her since she had loved the Lord all her life -- and had done great service to the church even though wheelchair-bound.

They used the same reasoning with homosexuality. You "claimed" heterosexuality regardless of the fact that you had NO heterosexual feelings. When you did not "change", you were told that you didn't have enough name-it-and-claim-it faith. It was YOUR fault, not the faulty teaching.

It drove many of the gay folks who came to EXIT/EXODUS to leave the church in despair, convinced that God had forsaken them because they were gay. "He turned them over..." Some of my clients attempted suicide. Again, a problem with THEIR faith, not the name-it-and-claim-it theology.

Posted by: MichaelBussee at October 13, 2006 12:54 PM

1:17 PM, October 13, 2006  
Blogger SCIA said...

Michael Bussee,

This "theology" is rather crazy and not something I would follow for a millisecond.

Interesting post for those extreamist.

3:08 PM, October 13, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


First of you're a whiney cry baby.


you forgot one word 'illegally'

Illegally collectd signatures.


you can vote on my rights when I get to vote on yours. I don't think you should have children,a job nor a home in this state. Shall I geta petition and we can call vote on it? I didn't think so

Shut the hell up.

2:43 PM, October 17, 2006  
Blogger SCIA said...


You said,

"you forgot one word 'illegally'

Illegally collectd signatures."

There was not ONE illegally collected signature from those who worked with the organization,, that conducted the signature campaign, NOT one.

As for the ONLY case of fraud of which is aware: The admission before a legislative committee and to the media by paid circulator Angela McElroy that she misrepresented the marriage petition, in which she was terminated from her employment from the sub-contracted agent who paid Ms. McElroy for her work, with cause, prior to her public admission.

Your facts, Anonymous, are incorrect.

There is also grave concerns about the legitimacy of the petition complaint reporting processes established by the anti-vote organizations and Both organizations offer searchable, online databases listing the names of marriage petition signers. Each website invites citizens to search their database and make a complaint to their office and/or to the offices of Secretary Galvin, Attorney General Reilly and state legislators if their name was listed but they did not wish to sign the petition.

While respects the First Amendment rights of these organizations, their online complaint process itself invites fraud in that it fails to authenticate the identity of the citizens filing complaints. Any person may pose as a disgruntled marriage petition signer, in essence stealing a legitimate signer's identity, and lodge a fallacious complaint of fraud.

In addition, has received a significant number of contacts from petition signers who themselves have received harassing and intimidating live and automated phone calls, as well as mailings, from MassEquality. As has been cited in media reports, these citizens have been frightened that their identities have been stolen and believe the calls and letters are intended to harass and intimidate them - a clear civil rights violation.

I myself have talked to people who have been harrassed, many of which will be giving their personal testimonials on this site soon.

In closing the deadline period for filing complaints with the Election's Division of the Secretary of the Commonwealth's office related to the petition process was January 6,2006. NO formal challenges to the signature-gathering effort were EVER filed.

You said:

"you can vote on my rights when I get to vote on yours. I don't think you should have children,a job nor a home in this state. Shall I geta petition and we can call vote on it? I didn't think so."

We can go back and forth on if marriage is a right or a privlage. It is not written anywhere to prove either stance.

Your proposal to have a petition on if Caron should have children ect is full of emotional bantering and nothing more.

Thanks for stopping by Anonymous but you really need to know what you are talking about before you press your opinions as fact.

As the great former Democrat Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan once said, “people are entitled to their own opinions but not their own facts.”


9:59 AM, October 18, 2006  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Powered by Blogger

Sign my Guestbook from Get your Free Guestbook from