As mentioned earlier, Connecticut voters refused to approve a Constitutional Convention which could have overturned gay marriage in our State. California voters, dare I say owing to their greater familiarity with both the style and the substance of the homosexual activist movement, appear to have handed a tremendous victory to pro-family forces across the nations. Today’s Wall Street Journal says:
Proposition 8, which would establish marriage as a union between a man and a woman, passed with 52.1% of the vote, against 47.9% opposed, with 94.6% of precincts reporting. The approval marks a stunning upset in a $70 million campaign that just weeks ago looked to be running in favor of preserving gay marriage rights.
The passage of Prop 8, as it is known, would be a major victory for religious conservatives seeking to ban gay marriage in other states, and a crippling setback for the gay rights movement nationwide.
Indeed. But what to do in States such as ours or Massachusetts, in which the right to gay marriage has been enshrined as a matter of State Constitutional law? When the highest judges in the land, elected by none and accountable to none, can create such a right as God made the world – out of nothing – and the people have no remedy available to them, what can pro-family forces do?
The fact that a “liberal” State like California, known for its large and very influential gay population, has spoken against gay marriage speaks volumes. As the FIC Blog points out today, some 30 states have already voted to protect marriage as it has been traditionally understood.
And what’s wrong with that?
Perhaps the majority in CT does not want to have the will of YOUR robed masters imposed on us. The Judicial Branch is concerned with things civil, answerable for the good of ALL. Your robed masters belong in their churches, answerable to their congregations and as such are not concerned with the good of all, only their own narrow constituencies.
Thank GOD the people of CT voted to put the good of all above the wants of the few special interests you represent.
Thanks for your comment but you are proving the point of people in Connecticut who wanted a Constitutional Convention. We have no way of knowing what the majority in Connecticut would want – and the Supreme Court of our State seems content to deprive them of any voice in the matter.
Surely you know that the people do not wish homosexual marriage to be viewed as normal. Even citizens of California voted against this when they had the opportunity to exercise their will.