South Dakota is among ten states urging California to delay implementation of it's homosexual "marriage" ruling until after November when the voters will have a say on the matter.
The attorneys general say in court documents filed Thursday that they have an interest in the case because they would have to determine if their states would recognize the marriage of gay residents who wed in California.
The Rapid City Journal has more extensive coverage of this development here, including additional information on Calif. Attorney General Jerry Brown's brief urging the court not to stay the ruling.
The ten states urging a delay are Alaska, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Michigan, Nebraska, New Hampshire, South Carolina, South Dakota and Utah.
Eight of these states have constitutional amendments to protect marriage, but Florida and New Hampshire only have Defense of Marriage Acts (DOMA), leaving them in a weaker position to fight the hijacking of marriage.
There are five states (Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York and Rhode Island) that have nothing at all to protect marriage from being undermined, though that ship has already sailed in Mass. and obviously the law means nothing to some judges in California.
The South Dakota Constitution specifies in Article XXI Section 9 that "Only marriage between a man and a woman shall be valid or recognized in South Dakota. The uniting of two or more persons in a civil union, domestic partnership, or other quasi-marital relationship shall not be valid or recognized in South Dakota."
Of course, homosexual activists aren't going to let silly things like laws and constitutions get in their way of redefining the natural order of marriage, family and human sexuality. Lawsuits are sure to follow, regardless of the law.
The state of California, however, should at least have the common courtesy to allow the democratic process to work before they implement the imperial decree of the California judges and subject the rest of the country to frivolous lawsuits.