(SFGate) - Prop. 8 would overturn the court's 4-3 ruling May 15 that declared same-sex couples had the right to marry under the California Constitution on the grounds of privacy and equal protection. Backers of the measure made the court a focus of their campaign, accusing "activist judges" of thwarting the will of voters who had approved a similar measure as an initiative statute in 2000.THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: The people of California have spoken, homosexual marriage is officially abolished. However, as is typical in the People's Republic of California, the courts threaten to overturn the will of the people even in a state constitutional amendment. To be sure, so long as it stays within the California courts, this is California's problem. The California government hasn't represented the people of California in decades, and why the people haven't abolished the state government with a constitutional convention is beyond me. Alas, that is California's problem for Californians to deal with. However, I don't believe the lawyers advocating gay-marriage will keep it in California's courts at all. Just as soon as they fail to get the ruling they want from the California courts, they'll appeal it to the federal courts, and once that happens California's problem becomes America's problem.
Three lawsuits were filed directly with the state Supreme Court on Wednesday, seeking orders immediately blocking enforcement of Prop. 8 and ultimately striking it down as a violation of fundamental rights in the California Constitution.
The plaintiffs are six unmarried same-sex couples and the advocacy group Equality California; another couple who married shortly after the May 15 ruling took effect; and the cities of San Francisco and Los Angeles, joined by Santa Clara County.
Although their lawyers would not discuss their strategy publicly, each suit seeks to overturn Prop. 8 on the basis of state law and avoids federal constitutional claims that could send the case to the U.S. Supreme Court. Gay-rights advocates have tried to keep such disputes away from the nation's high court, out of fear that the justices would issue a nationwide ruling rejecting any right of same-sex marriage under the U.S. Constitution....
read full story here
Before the federal courts will be the question of whether or not the federal government can annul a state constitutional decision by the people of a state on the issue of gay-marriage. Should the federal courts rule against the people, every state constitutional ban on same-sex marriage within the nation will be at stake. The issue will be put before the United States Supreme Court in what will amount to a U.S. Constitutional crisis. At the feet of nine Supreme Court justices will lie the fate and future of the United States of America.
Should the U.S. Supreme Court decide to uphold a federal court's decision to strike down a state constitutional marriage ban, then gay-marriage will effectively be forced on every state in the Union by judicial fiat. What will that mean? It will mean that the United States government, via the federal court system, will be effectively waging an ALL OUT WAR on Christian civilization and the traditional family. It will place the United States federal government as the sworn enemy of every Catholic family and Catholic parish in the nation. The same would go for any Evangelical Christian family and congregation in this nation as well. The United States government would effectively be waging war against traditional Christianity itself.
At that point, there will be no more reason to preserve the U.S. Constitution, the federal government, or Union of the United States of America. For any government that wages war against it's own people, and the civilization they have created, is effectively a false government and has lost it's right to govern. The people of the United States would have only two options available to them at that time.
- They can convince Congress to pass the 'Federal Marriage Amendment' (F.M.A.), so the states could immediately ratify it, and uphold their state bans on gay-marriage. Unfortunately, the people have recently elected officials to the U.S. government who have made it clear they have no intention of ever passing such an amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Both the new President-Elect, Barack Obama, and the Congressional Democrats, have made it clear that they support "gay-rights" and have no intention of doing anything that would stop gay-marriage from becoming the law of the land. If it never gets out of Congress, the states can never ratify it. So option number one is now next to impossible.
- The people of states that ardently opposes gay-marriage can begin organizing and drafting measures for the secession of those states from the federal government and the United States of America. This of course would have to be done through the peaceful, democratic and lawful means outlined for us in the principles of the Declaration of Independence. Only by becoming free and independent countries can those states then uphold their own constitutions and the will of the people. After two or more of those states successfully secede using only peaceful, democratic and lawful means, then they can reorganize under whatever form of community, confederation or collective they see fit. Economically, such measures would be viable by restructuring tax laws in those newly born nation-states to attract business investment. The "Fair Tax" proposed by the 'Americans for Fair Taxation' (read more here) would be one possible way this could happen, and should prove more than enough to bolster the economic viability of newly born nation-states. Other measures of deregulation and free market reforms would also serve to make secession a financially attractive and profitable alternative. As for national defense of these nation-state, treaties could be signed with the United States government, allowing it to keep U.S. military bases within these nation-states free of rent or lease, provided the U.S. government pledge to defend these nation-states from all foreign aggressors. This would set the foundation for peaceful coexistence and fair-trade with states still choosing to stay within the United States of America.
- IF the federal courts rule against a state constitutional measure banning gay-marriage, and...
- IF the U.S. Supreme Court upholds that ruling, and...
- IF the U.S. Congress will not pass the 'Federal Marriage Amendment'...
- THEN the only way the people can defend their families and Christian civilization is to secede from the federal Union.