Who Would Have Ever Thought....

....that marriage would be redefined. Those of us who believe marriage is ordained of God, find it heretical that people would even attempt to change an eternal principle such as this to suit their chosen lifestyle. Should we also change other laws because people don't like the way they restrict their lives and are inconvenient in some way? We are heading towards a very uncivilized country, contrary to the inspired planning of our nation's forefathers

California High Court Overturns Popular Marriage Referendum

Catholic News Agency May 14, 2008 (Abridged)

CNA -- Marriage and the family were dealt a blow today by a 4-3 California Supreme Court decision striking down the state’s law preventing homosexuals from being recognized as married. Advocates of marriage pledged to fight back with a ballot initiative aimed at amending the state’s constitution to define marriage as between a man and woman.

The case which the Supreme Court ruled on today originated from a lawsuit filed by the City of San Francisco in protest of a previous injunction issued by the Supreme Court that halted the city’s March 2004 granting of same-sex marriage licenses.

However, the battle over the meaning and definition of marriage cannot be presumed a done deal. A coalition of religious and social conservative groups is attempting to put a measure on the November ballot that would secure California's current laws banning gay marriage in the state constitution. The Secretary of State is expected to rule by the end of June on whether the 1.1 million signatures gathered by the coalition qualify the constitutional amendment to be placed on the November 2008 ballot.

Upon hearing the news of the California Supreme Court decision, the Alliance for Marriage (AFM) issued a call to Californians to lend their support to their state’s marriage amendment.

AFM president Matt Daniels reacted to the California ruling by saying he believes it will “galvanize” the efforts to defend marriage. Within the Catholic community, Daniels explained that Latino support will be “critical” to defending marriage in California. Nevertheless, Daniels was quick to point out that “the national battle continues to rage, and I guarantee you that the outcome in California has national significance.”

According to Daniels, “If the court decision in California stands, then marriage in every state in the country is going to be in peril because California is going to become a launching pad for judicial challenges in other states.”

California’s bishops expressed their “disappointment in the California Supreme Court decision.” “That statute reflected the wisdom of the voters of California in retaining the traditional definition of marriage as a biological reality and a societal good. Unfortunately, today, the Court saw fit to disregard the will of the majority of people of California,” the bishops said.

Noting that domestic partnerships are already legal in California, the bishops said that, “Today’s decision of California’s high court opens the door for policymakers to deconstruct traditional marriage and create another institution under the guise of equal protection.”

The Alliance for Marriage is a non-partisan, multicultural coalition whose Board of Advisors includes Rev. Walter Fauntroy -- the former DC Delegate who organized the March on Washington for Martin Luther King Jr. -- as well as other civil rights and religious leaders, and national legal experts.

www.afmusa.org

I have to add, if marriage is re-defined for gays, it will most surely have to be redefined in other ways. Basically by doing this we are adopting an "anything goes" mentality. Anyone can get married, so the next to be in question will be bigamy laws. How can we say anyone can be married who wants to be and not accept that as a chosen lifestyle preference? As long as all parties are consenting.... it's a can of worms....