But nonetheless, what a Pandora’s Box the California Supreme Court has opened.  These four black-robed autocrats have engaged in the worst kind of judicial activism, abandoning their role as objective interpreters of the law and, instead, constructively legislating from the bench. 

It’s absurd to suggest that the framers of the California state constitution could have ever imagined there’d be a day when so-called “same-sex marriage” would even be conceptualized, much less seriously considered.  If anyone then had suggested the ridiculous notion, early Californians would have laughed their smocks off.

For now, however, the court’s ruling is relatively toothless.  Governor Schwarzenegger is compelled by his oath of office to order officials to disregard the court’s opinion until either state lawmakers or “we the people,” through ballot initiative, actually legalize “gay marriage.”  And if Schwarzenegger directs officials to start issuing “gay marriage” licenses before that, no county clerk has constitutional authority to do so absent a change in law.  The court cannot change existing statutes, only issue an opinion as to the constitutionality of those statutes.  And an opinion is just that, an opinion.   

Nevertheless, since the court refused to stay its own opinion — as Liberty Counsel, the Alliance Defense Fund and attorneys general from nearly a dozen states had requested — and since Schwarzenegger and many county officials in California will, by all indications, submit to the court’s “supreme” will and begin issuing marriage licenses to homosexual duos on June 17, the court’s opinion will essentially be receiving a set of false teeth courtesy of the Governator.  At that point, the court will have effectively imposed “gay marriage” on Californians in direct defiance of the express will of the people as overwhelmingly ratified with Proposition 22.  

The court will have, for all practical purposes, “legalized” “same-sex marriage” (albeit through an arguably illegal process which paradoxically both invokes the constitutional “checks and balances” firewall and abuses it at the same time) because the other two branches of government will have waived the right of challenge. 

Therefore, “same-sex marriage” will be treated as legal in California (whether or not it actually is) at every level of government.  This “marriage” experiment from the Island of Dr. Moreau will have effectively, though not genuinely, been “legalized.”  

Undoubtedly, out-of-state “gay” duos will then “marry” in California and head back to their home states demanding their “marriages” be given “full faith and credit.”  Look forward to legal chaos.  The California decision is the goose that laid the golden egg for Lambda Legal/ACLU types.  

Still, hope remains.  A measure that would amend California’s Constitution to maintain the definition of marriage as a union “between a man and a woman” has been certified and will be on the 2008 ballot.  And there’s a good chance it’ll pass. 

But more must be done.  Anyone who ever said that the marriage “decision should be left up to the states” and that a federal constitutional marriage amendment was unnecessary, is now eating crow.  It’s clear, now more than ever, that a federal constitutional amendment protecting marriage is the only foolproof means by which to ensure that legitimate marriage and family are not radically redefined into oblivion.