Courts refuse to impose "gay" marriage.
This was not the end of it. Five days later, the NYT had to report "In Nebraska and Tennessee, more setbacks to gay rights: Court rulings add to defeats elsewhere" (July 15, 2006). "Opponents of same-sex marriage celebrate again," it stated; "now they have the right to amend their constitutions in the coming elections by proposing to ban such marriages."
A Wall Street Journal editorial thought this was not such a bad thing: "The politicians won't be able to hide behind judges" ("Gay democracy," July 10, 2006). "Politicians will have to come out of the closet themselves," it added.
Again that same week, the Supreme Court of Massachusetts allowed a constitutional amendment against same-sex "marriage" to stand for a citizen's vote in the election. As the (four) Massachusetts' bishops had argued, neither the judiciary nor the legislature should substitute itself for the sovereignty of the people, especially on such a foundational matter as the meaning of marriage for the common good of society (Zenit.org, July 10, 2006).
On July 26, it was the turn of the Supreme Court of Washington State to uphold the constitutionality of the State law limiting marriage to only the union of a man and a woman.
Finally, on July 31, a High Court in England ruled (in the case of Wilkinson vs. Attorney General) that a same-sex "marriage" legalized in Canada would not be recognized in Britain.
How did the pro-"gay" media in Canada handle the American and British "setbacks?" Well, they just forgot to report them!
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Title Annotation:||United States|
|Date:||Sep 1, 2006|
|Previous Article:||U.S. traditional marriage amendment fails in Senate.|
|Next Article:||Homosexual activists disrupt Pentecost Mass.|