Updated, from Tony Perkins of the FRC:
After a brief period of judicial restraint, California voters watched in horror this afternoon as judicial activism returned with a vengeance in one of the most egregious rulings in American jurisprudence. It took just four activist judges to overturn the historical definition of marriage, not to mention the vote of more than four and a half million Californians, as the state supreme court issued a much-anticipated ruling on the question of same-sex “marriage.”
By a 4-3 margin, the justices struck down a law, adopted by 61 percent of voters in 2000, which defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman. By imposing same-sex “marriage” on voters, the California Supreme Court knowingly usurped the right of the people to effect change in public policy. This outcome is even more troubling than Massachusetts’, in that California voters had already won the right to put a marriage protection amendment on the ballot in November.
If the court cared at all about the democratic process, it would have stayed its decision until the people’s voice was heard on the November amendment. Instead, these justices trampled on the legislature and created same-sex marriage by judicial fiat. This is nothing more than a judicial shotgun wedding that forces a redefinition of marriage on the people of California and potentially the rest of the nation. We trust that the voters of California will act in November to correct this exercise in judicial activism and to permanently enshrine the traditional definition of marriage in the state constitution.
Clearly, this decision highlights the need for a federal amendment defining marriage in the U.S. Constitution. Only then will this campaign to shatter the family’s foundation be ended once and for all.
KPIX TV in San Francisco is reporting:
In a monumental victory for the gay rights movement, the California Supreme Court overturned a voter-approved ban on gay marriage Thursday in a ruling that paves the way for allowing same-sex couples in the nation’s biggest state to tie the knot.
Domestic partnerships are not a good enough substitute for marriage, the justices ruled 4-3 in an opinion.
Outside the courthouse, gay marriage supporters cried and cheered as news spread of the decision.
[...]
California already offers same-sex couples who register as domestic partners the same legal rights and responsibilities as married spouses, including the right to divorce and to sue for child support.
But, “Our state now recognizes that an individual’s capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual’s sexual orientation,” Chief Justice Ron George wrote for the court’s majority.
Challenges remain for gay rights advocates despite the ruling.
A coalition of religious and social conservative groups is attempting to put a measure on the November ballot that would enshrine laws banning gay marriage in the state constitution. The Secretary of State is expected to rule by the end of June whether the sponsors gathered enough signatures to qualify the marriage amendment, similar to ones enacted in 26 other states.
If voters pass the measure in November, it would trump the Supreme Court decision.
[...]
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has twice vetoed legislation that would’ve granted marriage rights to same-sex couples, said in a statement that he respected the court’s decision and “will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling.” (more)
Hat-Tip: Leslie Carbone
Also see Michelle Malkin: Gay pride stickers in, pro-life shirts and Marine uniforms out
Save to Browser Favorites
Ask
backflip
blinklist
BlogBookmark
Bloglines
BlogMarks
Blogsvine
BUMPzee!
CiteULike
co.mments
Connotea
del.icio.us
DotNetKicks
Digg
diigo
dropjack.com
dzone
Facebook
Fark
Faves
Feed Me Links
Friendsite
folkd.com
Furl
Google
Hugg
Jeqq
Kaboodle
kirtsy
linkaGoGo
LinksMarker
Ma.gnolia
Mister Wong
Mixx
MySpace
MyWeb
Netvouz
Newsvine
PlugIM
popcurrent
Propeller
Reddit
Rojo
Segnalo
Shoutwire
Simpy
Slashdot
Sphere
Sphinn
Spurl.net
Squidoo
StumbleUpon
Technorati
ThisNext
Webride
Windows Live
Yahoo!
Email This to a Friend
If you like this then please subscribe to the 
The WebWarriors of Ft. Hard Knox (WWF) will be offering a series of Web2.0 workshops online.
Jenn:
We’ve got to be prepared for this kind of thing to happen on a daily basis across the nation once a Democrat gets into the White House. I only hope that conservatives will pull together and vote for the lesser of evils rather than stay home and kiss their booboos! Justices that legislate from the bench have all but destroyed the balance of power in this country!!!
[...] to another state and that “marriage” is null and void? Aaaaaaaannnnnnnddd, a majority of Californians did NOT want this crap passed, so someone (CA Supreme Court) didn’t give a shit what the citizenry [...]
Marriage should be exactly as the Bible commands, without alterations to make it more politically correct for modern liberals. We wonder how many people in this apostate society even know what the Bible says about marriage.
Once again, I must ask the question. Why is the state involved in marriage at all? The church sanctions marriage to strengthen the family. The state, for all of its claims to the contrary, uses marriage to regulate, interfere with, and ultimately control the family. The state attaches myriad tax consequences, employee benefits, and even property rights to marriage. Without those, the issue of gay marriage would be a non-event. So here again, the politicians pompously stake out self-righteous positions, for and against an issue which doesn’t belong in the public sphere at all. And thereby justify ever greater state interference in the private lives of its citizens.
I linked to and trackbacked to this post but its not showing up… is your trackback thingy working?
Twenty Items of Interest (v.18)
1. Just incase you haven’t had enough already… another political ad asking questions about Senator Barack Obama.
HT: Nuke
2. Because I didn’t do any political items in the last edition of Twenty Items of Interest….
Buffoon, the trackback “thingy” seems to have a mind of it’s own. The trackback url is the same as the post url, and theoretically, if you use that, there should be a trackack/pingback. Often they go to the spam folder, but I clean that out a couple times a day, and I haven’t seen your trackback there, yet, either. Sorry.
Ooops…spoke too soon, Buffoon (hey, that rhymes!)…there it is, now…#2.
According to what I just read. California Supreme Court justices are appointed for 12 years. When will the justices that voted against the will and wishes of the people they represent come up for re election?