Courts' 'hostile takeover of marriage'

Posted: December 04, 20108:10 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh © 2010 WorldNetDaily

Arguments are scheduled Monday before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, the federal court challenge to the decision (made twice) by voters in California to define marriage in their state constitution as being between one man and one woman, only.

And lawyers say that the issue is far bigger than just a single state law affecting benefits, rights and the advance of a regional homosexual social agenda.

"What's at stake in this case is bigger than California and bigger even than marriage," said Brian Raum, a senior counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, which is part of the team arguing on behalf of traditional marriage.

How did this happen in America? Read "Sexual Sabotage" for the explanation of the dark secret's of Alfred Kinsey.

"Americans are concerned about how marriage, voter rights, religious liberty, and other issues will be affected nationwide if this lawsuit is allowed to prevail. As was recently demonstrated on Election Day in Iowa and previously in 31 other states, Americans are tired of activists unhappy with the democratic process who therefore demand the courts conduct a hostile takeover of marriage for them," he said.

"Americans understand that this lawsuit seeks to impose – through a San Francisco court – an agenda that the country has repeatedly rejected," he said.

The reference to Iowa notes the fact that voters last month fired three of the seven state Supreme Court justices who earlier had imposed homosexual "marriage" on residents. The remaining justices were not up for a vote at this time.

And Raum's reference to 31 other states is the number of times that voters, when given the opportunity to vote on the issue, have chosen to define marriage as being between one man and one woman, only. There haven't been such votes in the other 19 states yet.

The fact that Proposition 8 in California is just part of the longterm stakes was noted in a terse warning from California Supreme Court Justice Marvin Baxter. In a dissenting opinion in the 2008 state court ruling that created same-sex "marriage" he noted the "legal jujitsu" required to establish same-sex "marriage" by court order.

"The bans on incestuous and polygamous marriages are ancient and deeprooted, and, as the majority suggests, they are supported by strong considerations of social policy," Baxter warned. "Our society abhors such relationships, and the notion that our laws could not forever prohibit them seems preposterous. Yet here, the majority overturns, in abrupt fashion, an initiative statute confirming the equally deeprooted assumption that marriage is a union of partners of the opposite sex. The majority does so by relying on its own assessment of contemporary community values, and by inserting in our Constitution an expanded definition of the right to marry that contravenes express statutory law.

Read More: