Interim Cal. same-sex “marriages” face legal uncertainty?
Mike McKee reports on the Recorder:
Same-sex couples excited by the California Supreme Court’s two-week-old decision declaring their right to wed are already booking dates to get licenses. But what will happen to those marriages if voters approve a proposed constitutional amendment in November that would restrict marriage to the union of a man and a woman?
There is no clear answer, but attorneys on both sides of the issue have staked out their positions and are ready for a fight. Gay-rights lawyers say the marriages would remain valid, conservative groups insist they would be nullified, and many on both sides predict there could be complicated legal battles to resolve the impasse . . .
“The plain language of the marriage initiative, which expressly states that only opposite-sex marriages will be ‘recognized’ in California, strongly implies that previously obtained same-sex marriages would no longer be recognized for any purpose,” Alliance Defense Fund attorney Timothy Chandler of Folsom, Calif., wrote. “Under this interpretation of the marriage initiative, the granting of these ‘marriage’ licenses would have been, for all intents and purposes, a futile act.” . . .
One Comment
The California Supreme Court has discriminated against religious peoples that hold the Marriage Sacrament to be Holy and a primary practice that sanctifies sexual intercourse between a man and woman.
The Court concluded that Homosexuals are a special classification because of their political presence and claims that they are discriminated against.
Promiscuous sexual intercourse is wrong and sinful (not that believers are without such sin). Homosexuals, on the other hand, have never held that their promiscuous same-sex practices are wrong.
They have in fact boisterously exclaimed such practices in their Gay Pride events and incidents of Bath House conduct, all of which have been a source of criticism by both religious and non religious peoples who are offended by promiscuous sexual conduct that has promulgated, by way of one example, the AIDS epidemic in the USA.
The Court’s rationale is based on the homosexual “Sexual Orientation” theory which includes the proclaimed “glbt” designations of Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender populations.
The fallacy in the Court’s finding is obvious: Bisexuals and Transgender people are not discriminated against because they are prohibited from marrying. They typically have no need to marry in a same-sex relationship. Further, the Bisexual population subscribes to a fully promiscuous lifestyle and represents by far the largest group of the Homosexual Classification. A prominent number of Bisexuals are married in heterosexual relationships and deceitfully violate the marriage commitment with tragic results.