Prop 8 Decision an "Assault on Democracy"
SACRAMENTO, CA -- The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled today that Proposition 8, the 2008 ballot initiative that codified the traditional definition of marriage, is invalid and unconstitutional.
"This is a stunning assault on democracy and California's initiative process," explained Karen England, Executive Director of pro-family group Capitol Resource Institute and a key leader in the passage of Proposition 8. "Well over 50% of California voters approved Proposition 8; today their will was overturned by a panel of arrogant judges who want to impose their political agenda on the rest of us."
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling is not the end of the road for Proposition 8.
"The truth will always prevail and we are confident that the traditional-and true-definition of marriage will be upheld by the Supreme Court," stated England. "The voice of the people must be heard and respected. The future of California and American families depends upon the sanctity of traditional marriage. It's time for the courts to recognize marriages' critical role in society and protect it."
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
Sign-Up Now for the Opposing Views Daily Newsletter
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
I guess when the Supreme Court overturned bans on interracial marriage that was also an assault on democracy since most people favored them at the time.
In other words: TOO BAD! It's about time Christards get put in their place in a country where they are given preferential treatment and everyone else is a second class citizen.
Outrageous travesties like the passage of prop 8 are the reason that the founding fathers created our system with a mechanism for expunging that cancer. They referred to it as the "tyranny of the majority," and the country is better off with prop 8 in the trash bin and government out of people's bedrooms.
"assault on democracy" - we are NOT a democracy - we are (supposed to be, at least) a REPUBLIC! Regardless of your Prop 8 views, can't we at least get that right?
Of course in our secular republic, which we still have in spite of the desires of people such Newt Gingrich, the minority have certain protections. I don't think many people would want our society not to have a Bill of Rights to protect the rights of groups that might be in disfavor.
The courts after all in '67 protected the right of people to marry those of differing races. Was that against the will of the people of those states? Of course, it clearly was just that. Why isn't that decision deplored today? Because even religious conservatives (maybe not all) support the right of interracial couples to marry. As they will with time of course, same sex marriage couples.
Jerome McCollom
I like it when people start shouting and complaining without actually knowing how the legislation process works. It's also great when a group cries foul when a situation doesn't favor them, but applauds the same situation when it does. Really makes you think there should be some kind of test to be allowed to vote.