|View Eagle Forum Press Releases|
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: May 15, 2008
CONTACT: Suzanne Bibby (202) 544-0353
Supremacist Judges Overturn CA Legislature and Rule in Favor of Gay Marriage
Washington, D.C.-Eagle Forum, a leading pro-family organization founded by Phyllis Schlafly, condemns the activist decision of the California Supreme Court which ruled 4-3 that state laws prohibiting same-sex marriage are discriminatory and unconstitutional. The case, Lockyer v. City and County of San Francisco (2004), was brought by about two dozen same-sex couples and the city of San Francisco.
In 2000, 61% of voters approved Proposition 22 which legally defined marriage in California as between one man and one woman. Despite the fact that California has one of the strongest domestic partnership laws in the country, Chief Justice Ron George, who wrote the opinion, stated that domestic partnerships are not a good enough substitute for marriage. Groups supportive of the state laws barring same-sex couples from marrying have been anticipating this move by the court and they are working to get a November ballot initiative which would amend the state Constitution to uphold the one man-one woman law.
"This decision should be a wake-up call to all Americans that our values and the foundation of our society, marriage, is being destroyed by judicial supremacy," said Eagle Forum Executive Director Jessica Echard. "The American people will not continue to stand by silently in the face of these activist court rulings."
"In 2000, the people of California voted overwhelmingly to uphold traditional marriage as the law of the land," Echard said. "Today, the California Supreme Court has stripped away the will of the people and engaged in judicial tyranny. Only elected representatives have the power to make laws, not judges."
"Eagle Forum President, Phyllis Schlafly, warned us about the judicial activists in her book, The Supremacists," Echard continued. "Over the past few decades, many of the most far-reaching social, economic, and political decisions have been made by judges rather than by our elected representatives, and this decision by the California court proves her correct yet again."
"We must never allow the definition of marriage to mean just two consenting persons agreeing to share quarters and start applying to the government and to employers for economic benefits," concluded Echard. "Traditional marriage is the essential unit of a stable society, and we must call on the American people to overturn this decision by referendum and to amend the California state constitution."