May 16 2008
The California Supreme Court ruled to recognize gay marriage. Unfortunately, the California Court acted to preempt the wishes of the citizens of California. California will have a similar decision to amend their constitution in the future.
This will not occur in South Carolina because in 2006 SC voted to add an amendment to our constitution defining marriage as one man and one woman. Many argued that this amendment was not important, yet had we not amended our constitution, any liberal activist court could have done the same in our state.
A flaming liberal will whine, why can’t we allow those that love each other to be married? One man & one woman, man & man, woman & woman, 2 men & 4 women, a house cat & a woman & her sister, 3 men and a cow…I don’t have the room on this site to give all of their perverted examples.
Out of respect for the Creator’s most sacred institution, the Palmetto State’s Constitution strengthens marriage, society’s foundational establishment. God even uses marriage to define the relationship with Jesus Christ and His church. Government must honor marriage as the union between one man and one woman.
‘EQUAL’ | Ruling could be reversed by amendment
May 16, 2008 BY ASSOCIATED PRESS
SAN FRANCISCO—- Even as same-sex couples across California begin making plans to tie the knot, opponents are redoubling their efforts to make sure wedding bells never ring for gay couples in the nation’s most populous state.
A conservative group said it would ask California’s Supreme Court to postpone putting its decision legalizing gay marriage into effect until after the fall election. That’s when voters will likely have a chance to weigh in on a proposed amendment to California’s constitution that would bar same-sex couples from getting married.
If the court does not grant the request, gay marriages could begin in California in as little as 30 days, the time it typically takes for the justices’ opinions to become final.
”We’re obviously very disappointed in the decision,” said Glen Lavy, senior counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, which is pushing for the stay. ”The remedy is a constitutional amendment.”
With a stroke of a pen Thursday, the Republican-dominated court swept away decades of tradition and said there was no legally justifiable reason why the state should withhold the institution of marriage because of a couple’s sexual orientation.