In a 4-3 decision on May 15, the California Supreme Court imposed, through judicial fiat, same-sex ‘marriage’ on the Golden State, disregarding both the sanctity of marriage and the will of the people.

In 2000, Californians adopted Proposition 22 to protect marriage and maintain its definition as a union between one man and one woman, and expressly prohibiting the state from recognizing same-sex marriages. More than half of all U.S. states have similarly passed ballot initiatives, many of them by amending their state constitution.

Karen England, executive director for Capitol Resource Institute, stated “The people of California decided eight years ago that marriage in our state will be defined as between one man and one woman. Four arrogant, elitist, activist judges decided that they know better than the people how marriage should be defined.”

Ron Prentice, the executive director of California Family Council, warns of the contempt this ruling shows towards democracy, “This shocking decision is a wake-up call for the majority of California’s citizens, whose votes have been rendered worthless by the Supreme Court’s disregard for the democratic system.”

Stuart Taylor Jr., a writer with the Washington-based National Journal and a supporter of same-sex ‘marriage’ also criticized the decision, calling it “an unfortunate exercise in judicial imperialism.”

The California Supreme Court ordered the state to stop calling homosexual couplings “domestic partners” and to open legal marriage to them. The majority decision dishonestly denied it was usurping the power of the legislature by claiming that it was not deciding “whether we believe, as a matter of public policy, that the officially recognized relationship of a same-sex couple should be designated a marriage” but rather “only to determine whether the difference in the official names (of marriage and domestic partnership) violates the California Constitution.”

Taylor would have none of that, calling the majority opinion “a deeply disingenuous dodge, if not a bald-faced lie” and “a raw exercise in judicial policy-making with no connection to the words or intent of the state constitution.”

Pro-family groups are hoping to address the judicial imposition of same-sex ‘marriage’ in California by having a state constitutional marriage amendment placed on the November ballot, while nationally supporters of traditional marriage say it is time for a federal constitutional amendment.

Matt Barber, CWA policy director for Cultural Issues, alluded to the November election and ballot initiative, during which the state constitution could be amended to truly represent the hearts of the majority of Californians, “On a positive note, the Court’s decision today will likely serve as a wake-up call to both Californians and their fellow Americans across the country. I’m certain this decision will help fuel a California marriage amendment and re-ignite debate over a federal amendment which would protect marriage as between one man and one woman.”

CRI’s England reiterated the importance of the November ballot, “We now must focus our energy on passing the Protect Marriage Initiative and place traditional marriage in the state constitution. This outrageous decision will electrify voters and we are certain they will once again choose to protect traditional marriage.”, a coalition dedicated to defending the sanctity of marriage, has already submitted 1.1 million Californian’s signatures to the Supreme Court, an initiative that should power the proposed amendment to the ballot, which if passed, would see marriage defined once again as the union of one man and one woman.

Thus far, the presidential candidates have not said much on the issue. Democrat Barack Obama generally supports the gay rights agenda but is non-committal on the issue of same-sex ‘marriage’ while Republican John McCain has said he opposes gay marriage but indicated he would leave it up to the states to decide the issue.

— with files from