- Maggie Gallagher discusses the ins and outs and implications. UPDATE: 5/21/08 - Gallagher has further observations that make for important reading.
- Hugh Hewitt weighs in here and here, and says regarding the November referendum to amend the California Constitution (and thus roll back the Supreme Court decision):
I hope every interested citizen in the country, every religious leader fond of religious liberty, every legislator who takes his or her job seriously will grasp that the vote on the marriage amendment on the Califoria ballot is really much much more than just a marriage amendment and concerns far more than just California law --it is a vote on who rules, judges or the People, and its result will mark a decisive beginning of a rollback of judicial imperialism or a capitulation to the courts on this and on any other issue the courts decide to impose their will upon.
- The Family Research Council comments:
After a brief period of judicial restraint, California voters watched in horror this afternoon as judicial activism returned with a vengeance in one of the most egregious
rulings in American jurisprudence. It took just four activist judges to overturn the historical definition of marriage, not to mention the vote of more than four and a half million Californians, as the state supreme court issued a much-anticipated ruling on the question of same-sex "marriage." By a 4-3 margin, the justices struck down a law, adopted by 61 percent of voters in 2000, which defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman. By imposing same-sex "marriage" on voters, the California Supreme Court knowingly usurped the right of the people to effect change in public policy. This outcome is even more troubling than Massachusetts', in that California voters had already won the right to put a marriage protection amendment on the ballot in November. If the court cared at all about the democratic process, it would have stayed its decision until the people's voice was heard on the November amendment. Instead, these justices trampled on the legislature and created same-sex marriage by judicial fiat. This is nothing more than a judicial shotgun wedding that forces a redefinition of marriage on the people of California and potentially the rest of the nation. We trust that the voters of California will act in November to correct this exercise in judicial activism and to permanently enshrine the traditional definition of marriage in the state constitution. Clearly, this decision highlights the need for a federal amendment defining marriage in the U.S. Constitution. Only then will this campaign to shatter the family's foundation be ended once and for all.