Pro-Family Groups Hail Calif. Court's Ruling Upholding Traditional Marriage

by Jenni Parker
October 6, 2006

(AgapePress) - - Today, in a closely watched case challenging California's marriage laws, the California Court of Appeals rejected same-sex marriage in a 2 to 1 decision. The pro-family legal organization Liberty Counsel, representing Campaign for California Families, presented argument before the court.

The majority's opinion stated that the same-sex couples in these appeals were asking the Court of Appeals to "recognize a new right," but that courts simply do not have the authority to create new rights, "especially when doing so involves changing the definition of so fundamental an institution" as marriage. "In the final analysis," the judges stated, "the court is not in the business of defining marriage."

The majority opinion also declared that the lower trial court's decision "essentially redefined marriage to encompass unions that have never before been considered as such in this state." The appellate court's decision went on to state that it is "beyond the judiciary's realm of authority to redefine a statute or to confer a new right where none previously existed."

Mathew D. Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel, was pleased with the California Court of Appeals' ruling. He says the court "followed the lead of other courts around the United States in recognizing that judges should not rewrite marriage laws with the stroke of a pen. The state of California did not create marriage and judges should not redefine it."

The marital union between a man and a woman is a unique relationship, Staver observes, one that "uniquely fosters responsible procreation" and contributes to the continuing well-being of men and women, children, and the state. "To redefine marriage to include same-sex couples would abolish marriage," the attorney contends. "The result," he says, "would be nonsensical and would have devastating effects on children and society."

Pro-family and religious leaders, conservative groups and public policy and legal organizations around the U.S. are celebrating the California Court of Appeals' ruling and applauding those who helped secure the court victory. On hearing of the decision, California attorney Richard D. Ackerman -- who was among the first to sue San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom for authorizing the issuing of same-sex marriage licenses -- remarked, "This is a great day for California and the nation."

Ackerman says while so many courts have failed to respect the system of checks and balances America's founders established, "California proved itself capable f reading the Constitution for what it actually means and was intended to be." He believes the ruling will do much to restore the public's faith in the nation's judiciary, which has lost much respect due to "errant judges wishing to make their own law," he observes.

The California attorney says his state and the rest of the nation owe a great debt of gratitude to Liberty Counsel and its attorneys Mat Staver and Robert Tyler and to the Alliance Defense Fund. These organizations and attorneys, Ackerman notes, took on the issue of homosexual marriage "regardless of being called hateful, intolerant, and the like. ADF and Liberty Counsel saw these battles through to the end."

Another legal group, the Pro-Family Law Center (PFLC), also commended the legal team that argued the case, noting in a recent statement that the ADF and Liberty Counsel attorneys "always saw this as an issue about the democratic process." No state, PFLC asserts, "should ever be controlled by radical activists, like Gavin Newsom, who happen to be in political positions of power."

But although VoteYesMarriage.com coalition spokesman Randy Thomasson called the California Court of Appeals' ruling "a great decision upholding the right of California voters to protect the natural and beautiful institution of marriage for a man and a woman," he warns that the victory might be short lived. He says the California Supreme Court could still create homosexual "marriages" next year when this case is appealed.

Thomasson points out that the state high court already has three justices who support the notion of same-sex marriage: Judges Kennard, Werdegar, and Corrigan. "They only need one more justice on their side to destroy the time-honored institution of marriage," he says. "Therefore," the California activist continues, "the only certain way to fully and permanently protect marriage in California is to place the VoteYesMarriage.com amendment on the ballot to override the judges and politicians."

Tom Minnery, Focus on the Family Action's Senior Vice President of Government and Public Policy, agrees that one-man, one-woman marriage in California remains vulnerable, as it does in other states due to the ongoing efforts of activist judges and elected officials to push same-sex marriage, even when the voters have overwhelmingly rejected it.

The California's Court of Appeals' decision upheld traditional marriage, Minnery notes, just as courts in Georgia, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York and Washington have recently done. Thus the California court "demonstrated a proper understanding of the role of courts by declaring that the right to change public policy is the realm of the state Legislature," he says.

But now, the Focus on the Family Action official contends, California lawmakers need to respect the will of the voters as expressed in 2000 when they approved Proposition 22, by protecting one-man, one-woman marriage with a state marriage amendment. Meanwhile, he says Congress needs to pass a federal marriage amendment, to ensure the uniformity of the definition of marriage nationwide..

"Despite these encouraging marriage decisions, marriage cannot remain vulnerable to the whim of judges who could impose their own will on society," Minnery insists. Marriage, he says, must be protected both in the states' and the federal constitution.