Editorial

In a predictable although troubling 4-3 decision, the California Supreme Court decreed on May 15 “gay marriage” is a “fundamental constitutional right,” overturning two state laws—one of which was affirmed by 61 percent of Californians in 2000.

Meanwhile, closer to home, a pro-homosexual organization calling itself “Florida Red & Blue” last week began sending deceptive mailings across the Sunshine State to voters who signed petitions to put the Florida Marriage Protection Amendment on the ballot seeking to sow confusion and ultimately defeat the measure in November.

Taken together, the California decision and the mailing should create a sense of urgency in those of us who believe marriage must be protected in Florida’s constitution—an urgency that should cause us to intensify our efforts to pass the Florida Marriage Protection Amendment.

Relying upon its own landmark decision 60 years ago overturning California’s law prohibiting interracial marriage, the Golden State high court ruled “gay marriage” also cannot be prohibited under the state constitution—never mind the fact that there is no such constitutionally enumerated right. The court also found that the state did not have a compelling interest in limiting marriage to opposite sex relationships.

For related coverage, click image.

Writing in dissent, Justice Marvin R. Baxter criticized the court’s “legal jujitsu” in which the recently adopted domestic partnership laws granting effectively virtually all the same rights of marriage to homosexuals “is used against [the Legislature] to create a constitutional right from whole cloth, defeat the People’s will, and invalidate otherwise immune from legislative interference.”

Baxter, calling the majority’s decision a “profound error,” also asserted, “Nothing in our Constitution, express or implicit, compels the majority’s startling conclusion that the age-old understanding of marriage—an understanding recently confirmed by an initiative law—is no longer valid.”

“This raw act of judicial activism is Exhibit A for why Florida needs to immediately pass a state constitutional marriage amendment. Florida’s citizens and not unelected judges should decide the future of marriage,” John Stemberger told me, reacting to the California ruling. Stemberger is chairman of “Yes on 2,” the political committee seeking to pass Amendment 2, the Florida Marriage Protection Amendment.

To read more about the California decision, click here.

Before the California Supreme Court’s decision was released, Florida Red & Blue (FRB) began sending mailings to marriage amendment petition signers across Florida.

The mailing dishonestly claims paid petition gatherers were used to obtain the necessary 611,009 petitions to qualify Amendment 2 for the November ballot. More seriously, the mailing attempts to deceive petition signers by saying the marriage amendment “could eliminate existing legal protections and benefits for all unmarried Floridians whether they are gay or not.”

For more about the mailing, see this story.

Ironically, the FRB mailer also notes that Florida has a state law prohibiting “gay marriage.” So did California. But, that didn’t stop four judges from overriding the expressed will of the people.

This demonstrates the validity of pro-marriage advocates’ claims since 2003 when the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court made the first major advance in “gay marriage.” In the wake of the Massachusetts decision — and now, again, with California’s action—it’s clear that mere state laws will not be enough to guarantee traditional marriage. Instead, marriage must be protected in state constitutions. Further, and ultimately, in order to protect marriage finally and convincingly, a federal marriage amendment must be adopted.

The FRB mailing, Stemberger told me, is just the “tip of the iceberg” that the group with $2.5 million in the bank will do to deceive voters against Amendment 2. And remember—it now takes 60 percent to successfully pass constitutional amendments in Florida. FRB and its allies must convince only 40 percent (plus one vote) of the electorate to kill the marriage amendment.

The California decision illustrates the danger that lurks for Floridians. If we fail, it’s merely a matter of time before the Florida Supreme Court will decree a state constitutional “right” to “gay marriage.” The FRB mailing, however, demonstrates the challenge we face in passing Amendment 2.

Both developments make plain the truth that those who believe in the sanctity of marriage need to have a sense of urgency about the battle — now fully engaged—to pass the Florida Marriage Protection Amendment. Every Florida Baptist church should have a plan to mobilize its congregation to vote for Amendment 2. For information how (including the legal opinions making clear churches may engage in such efforts) go to www.Yes2Marriage.org.

We cannot rest on the amazing success in getting nearly 650,000 petitions to put the amendment on the ballot. The California decision and FRB mailing should stoke within Florida Baptists and other citizens concerned about marriage a renewed commitment that we will work as hard as necessary to see to it that Amendment 2 is adopted in November.