SOUTH DAKOTA FAMILY POLICY COUNCIL PRESS RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: JUNE 5, 2008
CONTACT: CHRIS HUPKE 605-335-8100
“Homosexual-rights activists have in their cross-hairs the redefinition of marriage in America,” said Chris Hupke, President of the South Dakota Family Policy Council.
The recent decision from the California State Supreme Court creating same-sex “marriage” was reacted to by pro-family groups with a request the court put a stay on their decision until after the people of California vote this November on a State Marriage Amendment. The proposed amendment would define into the State Constitution; Marriage is between one man and one woman. Just yesterday that same state Supreme Court refused to stay their decision and declared their decision will be final at 5:00 pm on June 16.
Since 2000, twenty-seven states have passed state constitutional amendments defining marriage is between one man one woman.
States that do not have a state marriage amendment will see legal challenges to their current laws that define marriage as between one man and one woman.
“Several years back, South Dakota passed into law Defense of Marriage Act in the State Legislature. In 2006, the people of South Dakota amended the State Constitution to define Marriage as between one man and one woman. This effectively takes marriage out of the hands of judicial review.
Hupke said opponents argued in 2006, that South Dakota did not need a Constitutional Amendment since it had a Defense of Marriage Act. Hupke stated, “Today, South Dakotans that care about marriage are breathing a sigh of relief.”
Studies state children grow healthier and happier when both mother and father, living in the same home are involved raising the child. “By defining marriage as between one man and one woman in our Constitution as we have, South Dakotans are saying we recognize the critical importance of the institution of marriage to children and holding family together,” Hupke said.
According to Hupke, states without the Constitutional Amendment, but with state marriage laws are the target. Homosexuals will travel to California, get married and return to their home state filing lawsuits demanding their same-sex “marriage” be recognized by their respective state.
“The strange situation may come later when same-sex “marriages” dissolve and one of the partners moves to a state like South Dakota. South Dakota courts will get involved in divorce decrees, adoption issues, support orders, and many family related legal issues,” said Bruce Hausknecht, Judicial Analyst, Focus on the Family.
Friday, June 06, 2008
2006 Marriage Amendment Protects South Dakota From Calif. Same-Sex 'Marriage' Ruling
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Former state Rep. Elizabeth Kraus should be commended for her vision and foresight in getting this measure on the ballot.
States without a constitutional amendment are (like California) hanging in the wind right now.
Why are conservatives such hateful human beings? In fact, I'd classifly them as sub-human with news like this.
Why can't you see that allowing homosexuals to marry would only strengthen marriage? They want to commit themselves to their partner the same as any straight couple does. What marriage needs in this country is a bunch of people who want loving, committed, faithful marriages. Hopefully then we'll be able to bring down the huge divorce rate.
But you can't see that because you're blinded by your hatred for homosexuals.
I can't speak for everybody, but I know I don't hate homosexuals. And I know Elizabeth Kraus, and I haven't seen any indication she hates homosexuals, either.
You say allowing homosexuals to call their unions "marriage" would only strengthen marriage. If you own a business or I owe you a debt, can I give you a tree leaf and say it's worth $20? Would that "strengthen currency?" Or would it devalue it if you started accepting tree leaves as currency? Would counterfeit $20 bills strengthen or weaken currency?
So it is when we say a homosexual union is the same as "marriage." Only a man and a woman can make up a marriage. You can have two hammer handles or two hammer heads, but you don't have a hammer until you put a hammer head with a hammer handle. Likewise, you don't have a car until you put an engine with a chassis; two engines doesn't make a "car."
When you allow something specific to be defined any way we want it, it undermines that thing, takes away its specialness, it's significance, to where it really means nothing at all. And in countries that have allowed this several years ago (Scandinavia), marriage rates are plummeting--people quickly figure out it doesn't mean anything.
And the welfare of our children and the stability of our civilization are too important to undermine just to make a handful of people feel like their illegitimate relationships are legitimate.
If opposing behavior which is harmful to the individual and harmful to society around them was truly "hatred," then every decent parent would hate their child when they told them "no," as would every policeman display hate when he enforced the law.
Post a Comment