Unrestrained - Judges Gone Wild

Once again the California Supreme Court displayed a total lack of judicial restraint today when it denied a request to put the creation of same-sex "marriage" on hold until Californians go to the polls in November. As we reported yesterday, the petition was certified with far more signatures than California requires, placing on the November ballot a state constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union of one man and one woman. Refusal to "stay" the decision sets up a tangled legal web in which potentially thousands of same-sex "marriages" may be legally unrecognizable when and if the amendment is approved by voters. Homosexual activists have set the stage for legal theater and will tell voters that it's up to them to prevent it by playing along with the court's creation. Voters in California must realize that the court's irresponsibility does not negate their responsibility to provide the needed checks and balances to the court by upholding the historic and biblical definition of marriage for the good of all society.

It's Not Easy Being Green

When Congress adjourned for Memorial Day recess, marriage was in disarray, gas prices were soaring, circuit courts sat empty, and our troops were still waiting for funding to replenish supplies. Now, fresh off a holiday weekend in which most families paid $4 a gallon to drive to neighborhood barbecues, American patience has worn thin. Imagine the frustration this week, as Congress returned to work--not on judges, marriage, or the war supplemental bill--but on changing the weather. By a 74-14 vote, the Senate agreed to devote days to the Lieberman-Warner legislation on global warming. Desperate to prove their environmental mettle, liberals are fighting for a policy that would bankrupt the economy and burden American taxpayers. The leadership says its goal is to slash CO2 emissions by almost 20 percent in 12 years, but conservatives argue the cost to American businesses and taxpayers far outweighs the negligible climate benefit. The bill's 500 pages are a complicated mess of distorted science, pork projects, and a tax-and-trade solution that will send U.S. jobs overseas and result in the most massive expansion of the federal government since the New Deal. In just 10 years, the tax burden to American families would skyrocket by $1 trillion. The average American would face higher heating and cooling bills, more pain at the pump, and expensive consumer products. From the less fortunate, the bill saps even more. As Senator Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) points out in the Wall Street Journal, the poorest Americans already spend almost a fifth of their monthly budget on energy. By 2030, gas prices could climb anywhere from 45 cents to $1, and the U.S. economy would be on the hook for an extra $4.8 trillion. And for what? Even environmental advocates admit that in the end these concessions may do nothing to affect the earth's climate. After 40 years of Lieberman-Warner, the most that the Environmental Protection Agency is willing to promise is a one percent reduction in CO2 emissions. To hardworking Americans who are struggling to provide for their children, this entire debate is baffling. Sen. Inhofe, who has fought this global warming hysteria since 2003, challenged his colleagues to get back to business. "Will you dare stand on the Senate floor in these uncertain economic times and vote in favor of significantly increasing the price of gas at the pump, losing millions of American jobs, creating a huge new bureaucracy and raising taxes by record amounts?" Perhaps the most infuriating aspect of this bill is that the evidence is still very inconclusive about the climate threat. If anything is heating up, it's marriage. This Congress is becoming increasingly irrelevant to the real crises facing this nation as they refuse to intervene.

Power of Attorneys

The weeks leading up to June 16 in California are proving to be anxious ones for both sides of the marriage debate. On that Monday, the state Supreme Court will announce whether homosexual pairs can wed immediately or whether California will hold off on implementing its decision until voters cast their ballots on the marriage protection amendment in November. While homosexual activists are already claiming victory, pro-marriage allies from across the nation are bolstering the court's case for "staying" the ruling. The attorneys general of nine states, all of whom have a stake in the outcome of the June decision, urged the justices not to instigate same-sex "marriage" until the November election. In a strong showing, the attorneys general of Alaska, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Michigan, Nebraska, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Utah echoed our concern that a premature walk down California's aisle could mean legal bedlam in several states. Unlike Massachusetts, California law allows couples from other states to obtain marriage licenses. If out-of-state couples exchange vows before November, then travel home and sue their home state for recognition, American courts will be tied up for years trying to sort out what was preventable chaos. For the 26 states with marriage protection amendments, homosexual activists face an uphill battle even if the June 16 outcome is favorable to them. Last week, we witnessed the potency of a marriage amendment in Oregon when a federal court threw out a legal challenge to the state's definition of marriage. On Friday, a Wisconsin court followed with a second blow to same-sex "marriage" by dismissing a lawsuit to overturn the Badger State's marriage amendment. While everyone from Macy's bridal registry to New York Gov. David Paterson (D) is trying to accommodate same-sex weddings, public opinion is still opposed to gay "marriage." On Thursday, the Pew Research Center announced the results of a new poll in which "28 percent of voters view the issue as 'very important' in their decision about who [sic] to vote for in the fall." Despite cries that the issue is losing traction, Pew's research shows that the resistance to same-sex "marriage" has held steady since 2004. This is certain to trouble most Democrats leading up to the general election, particularly since large pockets of that opposition reside in one of their most reliable voting blocs--black and Hispanic women. As Ben Wattenberg of the American Enterprise Institute says, "...Democrats always say social issues have gone away and they never do. They [haven't] gone away since 1968."