New Cmntry
Exposing The Arrogance of California's Activist Supreme Court Judges
 
Ten State Attorney Generals Argue for a Stay of SSM Decision
 
May 30, 2008
Greetings!
 
Today, ten (10) state Attorneys General filed a brief asking the California Supreme Court to stay the May 15 ruling "until certification of the election results relative to the proposed California ballot measure on marriage."
 
The AGs who signed are from Alaska, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Michigan, Nebraska, New Hampshire, South Carolina, South Dakota & Utah.
Why this is important
  • That ten state attorneys general have filed a brief on behalf of Proposition 22 Legal Defense and Education Fund's motion demonstrates the huge ramifications of implementing the ruling prior to November's vote. 
  • The ten attorneys general affirmed that nationwide legal chaos will erupt if California exports the state's unresolved marriage issue beyond its borders.
  • When the marriage amendment passes, California same-sex "marriages" will still be litigated in many other states despite the fact that Californians will have chosen not to redefine marriage.
  • The State of California should not inflict this widespread confusion and litigation on other states before its own law is settled.
  • The opposition's demand that the decision be implemented before the people have a chance to vote demonstrates a disrespect for the people and the democratic process.
Four (4) people in black robes have unlawfully imposed their personal social policy agenda on all America 
  
The three dissenting California Supreme Court Justices, Justice Marvin R. Baxter, Justice Ming W. Chin, and Justice Carol J. Corrigan, called the ruling a "startling" act of "legal jujitsu" that "oversteps judicial power." 
 
Justice Baxter wrote, "I cannot join the majority's holding that the California Constitution gives same-sex couples a right to marry. In reaching this decision. . . the majority. . . commits profound error." (Highlights mine) 
 
"Nothing in our Constitution, express or implicit, compels the majority's startling conclusion that the age-old understanding of marriage - an understanding recently confirmed by an initiative law - is no longer valid."
 
Baxter went on to say, "But a bare majority of this court. . . now abruptly substitutes, by judicial fiat, its own social policy views for those expressed by the People themselves. Undeterred by the strong weight of state and federal law and authority, the majority invents a new constitutional right" and "finds that our Constitution suddenly demands no less than a permanent redefinition of marriage, regardless of the popular will."
 
Justice Corrigan said, "The majority improperly infringes on the prerogative of the voters by overriding their decision. It does that which it acknowledges it should not do: it redefines marriage because it believes marriage should be redefined .... It justifies its decision by finding a constitutional infirmity where none exists."
Shades of Oregon!
 
Both Governor Ted Kulongoski and the democrat controlled Oregon Legislature engaged in a  "startling" act of "legal jujitsu" when they "improperly infringed on the prerogative of the voters by overriding their decision" as expressed in 2004 when the voters of Oregon amended the state constitution to protect marriage between a man and a woman only. They did what they "should not do" when they "redefined marriage because they believed marriage should be redefined," and they "justified their decision by finding a constitutional infirmity where none exists" in order to do it.
 
As Justice Baxter said, "Nothing in our Constitution, express or implicit, compels the majority's startling conclusion that the age-old understanding of marriage - an understanding recently confirmed by an initiative law (in Oregon's case, a Constitutional Amendment!) - is no longer valid."
 
As in California, "a bare majority" "abruptly substituted" "its own social policy views for those expressed by the People themselves." 
 
Kulongoski and his democrat locksteppers in the Oregon Legislature, "Undeterred by the strong weight of state and federal law and authority," "invented" a new set of "constitutional rights" for homosexuals who simply. . . want them!
 
As in California, Governor Kulongoski and his social engineering democrat majority in Oregon, committed a "profound error."
 
Now we shall see if our own Supreme Court will step forward to allow Oregonians to VOTE on the two 'profound errors' the Governor, the Legislature and their California friends wish to impose on us like it or not. So far, they haven't.
Quick Links...
 
Restore America Homepage  www.restoreamerica.org