Same-Sex 'Marriage' on Fast Track in California, in Limbo in Massachusetts
by Fred Jackson, Jody Brown, Bill Fancher, and Allie Martin
April 21, 2004
(AgapePress) - The State of California has taken a major step toward legalizing homosexual "marriage."
On Tuesday, the State Assembly Judiciary Committee voted to approve Assembly Bill 1967, legislation that would change California's definition of marriage in the state's Family Code from "a man and a woman" to "two persons." The vote was split along party lines with the eight Democrats voting in favor of the bill and the three Republicans rejecting it. The bill was introduced in February by Mark Leno, a homosexual assembly member from San Francisco.
Pro-family groups are expressing outrage over the decision. Karen England of the Capitol Resource Institute in Sacramento tells WorldNetDaily that "we are shocked and appalled that the majority of committee members decided to ignore the will of the people they represent." She was referring to the fact that four years ago, Californians overwhelmingly voted to approve Proposition 22, which limits marriage to one man and one woman.
England contends that the committee ignored several major concerns about homosexual marriage. In a press release, she says same-sex marriage will create motherless and fatherless homes for children -- and that such unions hinge on the "right" of any two people to marry if they simply love each other.
"Marriage has always, throughout history, been between a man and a woman. Society has never before formally endorsed, encouraged, or legalized same-sex marriage. Where will the lines be drawn?" she asks.
The Institute's spokeswoman says if society allows marriage to be re-defined, "soon it can be anything anyone wants it to be." AB 1967, she says, is "a great stride toward un-defining marriage."
Randy Thomasson of Campaign for California Families was present at the committee hearing on the legislation. Holding up a blue-and-yellow Proposition 22 sign, he told committee members that Leno's proposed measure is "illegal, unconstitutional, and immoral."
Randy Thomasson | |
"This bill turns marriage upside down and utterly rejects the vote of the people to protect marriage for a man and a women," the CCF executive director said. "AB 1967 is corrupt -- and any legislator who votes for [it] is corrupt too."Thomasson blames Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez for allowing his fellow Democrats to push for homosexual marriage and reject the will of the California voters. He wonders if Nunez wants the voters to equate voting for Democrats as voting for same-sex marriage. "This [bill] should have never been introduced or even had a hearing," Thomasson says.
AB 1967 now advances to the Assembly Appropriations Committee. Of the 21 members of that group, 16 are Democrats. Bill sponsor Leno is a member of that Committee. If the measure passes Assembly Appropriations, it would then move to the full Assembly before going on to the State Senate.
Mass. Governor Urged to Stand Firm
While groups like the Capital Resource Institute and Campaign for California Families continue to defend traditional marriage in the Golden State, pro-family groups in Massachusetts are applauding efforts by Governor Mitt Romney to stay a court order to start issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. At the same time, those groups are advising that he should prepare a backup plan.
Governor Romney wants the court to suspend its May 17 deadline until the people of his state have a chance to vote on a marriage amendment to the state constitution. Romney feels the legality of same-sex marriage is not a question for the courts, but for the people of Massachusetts.
Genevieve Wood of the Family Research Council says that is the right move by the governor -- and she is hoping Romney's argument will win favor from the court. "The people of the state now have an amendment before them to vote on, but they're not going to have a chance to vote on it for almost two years," she says. "So you've got to [refrain from] handing out marriage licenses until people can vote on [the amendment].
Wood has some advice for Romney, should the court refuse to make the stay. "I think the executive branch -- being the governor -- has to stand up for the people of this state and say, 'Look, I hold the majority of police powers here, and we're not handing out these marriage licenses,'" she says.
If the court issues a stay of its own order, both sides in the debate will attempt to refine the version of the amendment to their liking. Currently it bans same-sex marriage, but at the same time legalizes civil unions that have the same rights and privileges of marriage.
Not a Civil Rights Issue, Says Florida Pastor
With these events in California and Massachusetts -- and similar actions in other states -- Dr. D. James Kennedy says it's imperative that Congress pass a Constitutional amendment protecting traditional marriage.
Kennedy, the founder of the Center for Reclaiming America, says although 38 states have passed Defense of Marriage Acts (DOMAs) that define marriage as between a man and a woman, the U.S. Supreme Court could easily overturn such legislation.
"The problem is [that] the federal courts ... want to overturn state legislatures," Kennedy says. "We saw this very clearly in the Lawrence v. Texas decision, which discovered some right to sodomy in our constitution, which I'm sure the founders never noticed. And in doing that, they overturned an act of the state legislature of Texas -- and they could do the same thing with DOMA acts in various states."
Is it discriminatory to prohibit homosexual marriage? Kennedy says the argument comparing same-sex unions to the civil rights movement of the 1960s is outlandish.
"It's not part of the civil rights movement. The civil rights movement was when they were trying to get blacks to have the same civil rights that other people had," he explains. "But the fact of the matter is that everybody in America has the right to marry on the same basis that anybody else has the right to marry. So it's not a matter of civil rights at all."
President Bush has expressed his support for a Constitutional amendment to protect traditional marriage.
