California's Supreme Court

I wanted to send this article about the California supreme court's ruling against an amendment http://brianleesblog.blogspot.com/2008/05/california-marriage.html, that passed by a large majority, which defined marriage as between one male and one female. It is too bad that even in areas where the majority of our nation wants to to the moral thing, that a small group can impose an immoral law like that on that state, and since the constitution requires contracts in one state to be honored in all, the country http://brianleesblog.blogspot.com/2008/06/ny-same-sex-marriage.html . A book I recommended previously about Judicial tyrany like this is Men in Black, if you want to get it at your library or bookstore and you can also review our book about the ten commandments to know right and wrong.

http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/56924749&referer=brief_results
http://www.gnmagazine.org/booklets/TC/

Will Gay Rights Trample Religious Freedom?By Marc D. Stern, Los Angeles Times Early this morning, gay and lesbian couples were surely lining up at county clerk's offices across the state to exercise their new right to marry, bestowed on them last month by the California Supreme Court.In its controversial decision, the court insisted that these same-sex marriages would not "diminish any other person's constitutional rights" or "impinge upon the religious freedom of any religious organization, official or any other person." Religious liberty would be unaffected, the chief justice wrote, because no member of the clergy would be compelled to officiate at a same-sex ceremony and no church could be compelled to change its policies or practices.And yet there is substantial reason to believe that these assurances about the safety of religious liberty are either wrong or reflect a cramped view of religion.The case for same-sex marriage, reduced to its essentials, is an attractive one. It is that the government in a liberal democracy ought not to impose any one moral vision on its citizens; moral decisions ought to be, as much as possible, a matter of private choice and not law.But it should not follow that having allowed same-sex couples to come out of the closet, as it were, that religious people should in turn be confined to the sanctuary.In the same-sex marriage decision, the state Supreme Court suggests that all will be well and good as long as the "official" activities of the clergy aren't affected. But that excludes religion entirely from a broad range of social welfare and other activities, despite the fact that the California Constitution declares: "Free exercise and enjoyment of religion without discrimination or preference are guaranteed..."Click here to read the rest of this article: Will Gay Rights Trample Religious Freedom?