LOS ANGELES (Catholic Online) - The California Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Tuesday, March 4, 2008 arising out of the consolidation of a group of cases which were filed by homosexual couples over the last four years.

The effort was strategically prepared and is clearly intended to challenge the California Sate law precluding them from obtaining marriage licenses. The Court now must decide within three months whether the California law somehow violates that State’s Constitution.The argument involves the "Equal protection" Clause of the California Constitution.

The State Challenges are a prelude to the real goal, the strategic plan to use the United States Supreme Court to redefine Marriage and then force society to recognize this new meaning under the threat of the police power of the State.

Those who support marriage as a lifelong committed relationship between one man and one woman are being pilloried in many of the press reports. Those who support marriage - as marriage – are being brushed with all the disparaging terms thrown at people who insist that there is any such a thing as objective truth in an age of moral relativism.

As a convinced and committed Catholic Christian, I know that there are immense social implications to living the truth as revealed in the Natural Law. This is an age deluded by the siren song of moral relativism.

I have fought for decades in the noble fight to restore the fundamental human right to life for all men and women from conception to natural death. I was often labeled a “conservative” because of my absolute insistence that the womb is the first home of the whole human race and that every child has a right to life and a freedom to be born.

Yet, I insist that I am not a “conservative”.

I openly opposed the initial incursion into Iraq, insisting that it could not be justified under the classical “just war” analysis.

I have long opposed capital punishment - as no longer necessary to protect society. I have raised deep concerns about the insistence that we build walls to prevent people from following their hopes for freedom on our Nations borders.

However, I long ago gave up any hope that either major political party had a place for me. I am pro-life, pro-marriage and family, pro-freedom, pro-peace and pro-poor. I am neither liberal -nor conservative, neither right nor left.

I also strongly support the Federal Marriage Amendment.
The Supreme Court case in California is one more example of why.

This is only one more effort by homosexual activists to expand the legal definition of marriage to include homosexual partners. In fact, the Justices are being used as a part of an orchestrated legal move to prepare the case for the United States Supreme Court.

It is a clear example of why this Amendment is so important.

Marriage matters. It serves the common good.

Monogamous Marriage, and the family founded upon it, is the first society, the first school, the first economy, the first hospital, the first church and the foundation of a just social order.

The oxymoron, “gay marriage”, once used by only the fringe elements of the extreme homosexualist movement, has quickly become an acceptable expression. So has that other oxymoron, “same sex marriage”. Both are even being used by those who defend true marriage, thinking they are simply being sensitive.

Huge mistake.

These terms are a part of a verbal strategy. Their use is now commonplace in the media, - “conservative”, “liberal” and “mainstream” - as it reports on efforts to defend and promote true marriage.

In an Orwellian spin, those who support marriage as marriage are now being called “narrow minded” and accused of trying to push our “values” or, even worse, “religion” on others.

And, in one more brilliant feat of rhetorical skill, the new cultural revolutionaries have once again flipped a major social debate.

Notice how the effort to redefine marriage is being framed by the activists in the "Human Rights Campaign" and among other well funded and very competent homosexual activist groups. The new rallying cry is the “right to marry”.

Just as the proponents of legal abortion on demand so skillfully stole the word “choice” and captured it as a slogan behind which to hide the infamy of abortion and feticide, the architects of the new social order are now decreeing that the ‘right to marry” is somehow being denied to homosexual partners.

These efforts, led by the homosexualist movement, to force legal recognition for homosexual relationships on all of society has gained great momentum through a sophisticated, intelligent and well funded and multi-faceted effort. The goal is nothing short of the total re-ordering of civil society in a new cultural revolution. ...