Just before the elections, The Heritage Foundation published a paper I wrote about how redefining marriage to include same-sex unions would threaten religious liberties and foster a climate of contempt for people who continue to believe marriage involves a man and a woman. As the paper explains, once courts conclude that traditional marriage laws discriminate against homosexuals, public officials and others in society will come to regard continued support for traditional marriage as a form of bigotry that should be purged from society. A full page ad in the New …
Tomorrow, voters in California, Arizona, and Florida will decide whether to approve amendments to the constitutions in those states that would define marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman. The amendment in California would overturn the recent decision of the California Supreme Court to impose same-sex marriage by judicial fiat despite a democratic measure supported by 61% of California voters that defined marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman. The amendments in Arizona and Florida would preempt judicial decisions redefining marriage in those states. …
Same sex marriage opponent David Benkof knows that the California Supreme Court decision finding domestic partnership’s discriminatory against homosexuals is just the beginning, not the end, of judicial activism. He reports in the Philadelphia Inquirer: A representative of the largest Michigan gay-rights group, known as the Triangle Foundation, and openly gay Washington State Sen. Ed Murray both told me that any person who continues to conduct himself as if what he thinks is God’s definition of marriage is correct, instead of the gay community’s definition, should be fined, fired and …
The California Supreme Court’s decision Thursday to grant same-sex couples a fundamental right to marriage disregards voters’ 61 percent decision in favor of marriage as one man and one woman, a domestic partnership law already granting same-sex couples the benefits and privileges of marriage, and centuries of tradition and precedent–corroborated more recently by social science–that have set the union of one man and one woman apart from all other household forms. The decision is a masterpiece of judicial activism. It is long on public policy preferences, and extremely short on …
