====== FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE ======
America First Party
1630 A 30th Street #111
Boulder, Colorado 80301
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
California "Gay Marriage" Decision Usurps Legislature, Reflects Voter Apathy
Boulder, CO - Casting aside the practice of many millennia of interpreting the word "marriage" to refer exclusively to heterosexual unions, the California Supreme Court declared homosexual marriage to be a constitutional right earlier this month. We can be sure that the original drafters of California's constitution would not have dreamed of this outcome. It is also a clear affront to the wisdom of our nation's founders, who understood that there are "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God," laws which are easily understood to be irreconcilable with homosexuality.
What is the basis of this judicial act? Article 3, Section 3 of the California Constitution states, "The powers of state government are legislative, executive, and judicial. Persons charged with the exercise of one power may not exercise either of the others." Faced with the fact that there is no reference to "homosexual marriage" in the state's constitution, and the reality that the state legislature has not rewritten the marriage laws to accommodate unnatural relationships, it is obvious that the state supreme court has violated the principle of separation of powers and usurped the role of the legislature.
Fortunately, a California ballot initiative could neutralize the court's misconduct -- it appears likely to qualify for the November ballot. But this recent episode of judicial tyranny begs consideration of a question. How did we come to have so many activist judges, and what will be done to stop them from eroding society's moral and legal underpinnings?
National Chairman Jonathan Hill stated, "Judges who legislate from the bench are often like the elected officials who appointed them, or the voters who elected them. They are often just manifesting the same philosophy and disinterest in constitutional principle as those who put them in their position. If voters do not change, this will not be corrected."
"To stop judicial activism, the voter must first carefully reflect on principles of good government before even approaching the ballot box," stated National Secretary John Pittman Hey. "Constitutions are not merely quaint prose, but rather the source of much of the criterion for evaluating the competency and decency of candidates. By taking policy positions opposed to basic constitutional principles and the oath of office, unqualified candidates identify themselves as a moral hazard to the vigilant citizen."
Jonathan Hill, National Chairman, 1-866-SOS-USA1, ext. 4
Michael Lynch, Press Secretary, 1-866-SOS-USA1, ext. 2