AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION OF PENNSYLVANIA

Resources

Home

Statement of Purpose

Current Action Alert ( sign up to receive AFA of PA Action Alerts

Pornography Fight

Pro-Life Issues

News Release
For Immediate Release: May 26, 2009
Contact: Diane Gramley 1.814.271.9078 or 1.8914.437.5355

California Supreme Court Upholds Will of the People, But . . .

(Harrisburg) – Today’s decision by the California Supreme Court to uphold Proposition 8 which places the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman in that state’s constitution was the right decision. Proposition 8’s November 4^th clear 5-point victory expressed the will of the people of California and the Supreme Court refrained from judicial activism in upholding the voters’ will. However, by not negating the 18,000 so-called same-sex marriages performed between June 17^th and November 4^th, the court has ignored a problem they created, noted the American Family Association of Pennsylvania (AFA of PA).

“On June 4, 2008 a request to stay the court’s order to permit so-called same-sex marriage until after the November 4^th vote on California’s Proposition 8 was denied by the California Supreme Court. The whole issue of what to do with 18,000 same-gender ‘marriages’ could have been avoided by a decision to stay the order,” remarked Diane Gramley, president of the AFA of PA.

Historically constitutional amendments have not allowed a practice to be grandfathered. When the Thirteenth Amendment was ratified, all slavery was ended. Slave owners at the time of the ratification could not claim grandfather rights in order to continue owning their slaves. Even so, the California Supreme Court should have dissolved the 18,000 same-gender “marriages” because in not doing so it places Pennsylvania and other states without Marriage Protection Amendments (MPA) at risk.

“The 18,000 California unnatural marriages should cause great concern to all who know what marriage really is. Of greater concern should be that a state Supreme Court refuses to undo the damage they made. Because of their refusal any of those individuals involved in these so-called marriage could come to Pennsylvania or any other state without a MPA and challenge that state’s Defense of Marriage Act,” further remarked Gramley.

The California Supreme Court’s inability to do the right thing on both issues that were before them places California in unknown territory.

“Homosexual activists plan protests this evening in response to the decision. Will they be violent as they were right after the passage of Proposition 8? Will they target the individuals and businesses that donated to the passage of Proposition 8?

Will they target the churches and pastors who supported Prop 8? The true face of those pushing for the normalcy of the homosexual lifestyle will once again be revealed tonight,” noted Gramley.

# # #