Sauerberg reacts to California marriage decision

(Lombard, IL) - "Today four activist judges on the California Supreme Court voted to radically re-define the institution of marriage.  I strongly believe that marriage is an institution that should be reserved for one man and one woman and, accordingly, strongly disagree with this decision. 

"Today's ruling is a stark reminder of the need for conservative judges and justices who will interpret the law - not create it.  As a United States Senator, I will only vote to confirm strict constructionist judges who understand the proper role of the judiciary."

See also IR's post "Where Sauerberg stands on gay marriage," April 1, 2008

Comments

[rightwinger]

Unfortunately, I don't think this issue is going to save the day for republicans this year.

[David E. Smith]

A fantastic response by Dr. Sauerberg!

And to rightwinger, don't be so negative. The 2004 Massachusetts decision was the catalyst for 26 states amending their constitutions.

The vast majority of people in America still clearly see that natural marriage can never be anything but one man and one woman.

As long as we have radical liberals who are pushing the redefinition of marriage, family, gender, decency and sexuality -- candidates who hold to traditional conservative values on these things will do well.

[Paul, Just This Guy, You Know?]

Wasn't this decision reached by a 7-member court, of which 6 were appointed by Republican Governors? Doesn't that fact undermine Dr. Sauerberg's solution to the problem?

We need the Federal Marriage Amendment, and I hope that Dr. Sauerberg will come out in favor of that.

Mr. Smith, I very much hope you're right; certainly there are plenty in Illinois who would like to bring about a similar result. It would be a true silver lining if reaction to this decision in Illinois were to lead to renewed interest in the fight against gay marriage in Illinois.

[Down with Durbin]

Yes I tend to bubble up when Dr. Sauerberg is mentioned - I'm glad to see the presentation of his statement without comment today. David, sadly some academic studies (can't cite them chapter and verse right now - read them in the course of the last year) suggest that the wave of marriage amendments had only a negligible impact on electoral outcomes in 2004.

One might also suggest that Sauerberg's use of "conservative" when describing his ideal justice is superfluous - I'd be okay with a judge of almost any personal political stripe so long as they're devoted to the Constitution as it was written and not the nebulous idea of a "living document."

[Levois]

I don't like this decision, but personally I think government should get out of marriage. I don't think two people should go to their local courthouse and procure a license so that they should get married. I would prefer that couples would go to their local house of worship. BTW, I personally believe marriage is between a man and a woman.

[Don Castella]

Government which is supposed to be a clear reflection of We the People, has a primary interest in the integrity of the family unit. The family is the fundamental unit of society and the source of its moral education. Attacks on the definition of marriage are really attacks on the family itself. If we are to preserve our society, we must work to ensure that children continue to have one mother and one father as they have since time immemorial.

Attempts to radically redefine marriage by the 3% of Americans who practice sodomy and other aberrant behaviors not shared by the other 97% of Americans will ultimately fail.

Attempts to radically overthrow the clear majority will of the people by judicial fiat must also fail. The people of California must now stand up and overwhelmingly pass the Defense of Marriage Amendment proposition on the November ballot.

[Jeanette]

Is that it. Will someone please tell me when issues such as these come up if you think about the human beings involved.
I think we need to examine what role government should play in our lives and the rest we influence by our own actions.
It is the role of parents to influence their children.
Law will not change the behavior of homosexuals with the exception of the promotion of monogomy.
I don't have the answers, but I know I could never look another person in the eye and tell them I don't think their value as a human being is less than mine.
We have free will and we make mistakes. When we take freedom away from people, it leads to other freedoms being taken away.
I don't want government telling me how to live; do you?

[downstate GOP faithless]

isnt this the same guy everyone on here was screaming at for hiring a gay person? now one statement makes him a hero...someone please fill me in on how to get thru life so easily?

[PhilCollins]

I'm glad that Sauerberg is finally in the news. About 10 times, this month, I used google to look for articles about him, and I couldn't find any. Sauerberg shouldn't expect to beat Durbin if he's not in the news often.

[Michelle]

With all the heat Fran took on pointing out Barron's last job with the Log Cabin Republicans, let's just say gesture of good will that she gave his comments exposure on IR.

If you follow the link at the bottom, it goes back to the original statement. We still don't know if Sauerberg favors a federal marriage amendment, the only answer to this national dilemma on defining marriage.

Barron worked against the President on the federal marriage amendment. I doubt very much if Sauerberg is allowed to issue a statement supporting the FMA.

We'll see. It will be an issue this election with California's petition drive.