Sunday, October 6, 2024, 3:23 pm | Randy Thomasson
Do you realize the POWER of a state constitutional amendment?
If Prop. 3 passes, lawsuits can claim its eight very broad, subjective words — “The right to marry is a fundamental right” — award the constitutional right to marry whomever and whatever.
Such a lawsuit or lawsuits would result in all the marriage standards, definitions, and limits in the Family Code, the Penal Code, and other statutes being ruled “unconstitutional.”
Because when lower laws (state statutes or local government ordinances) conflict with the words in a state constitution, the constitution supersedes and eliminates all rivals.
Therefore, if you care about children and don’t want boys and girls to be groomed for underage marriages by predator adults, you’ll want to vote NO on Prop. 3.
Because, under this deceptive state constitutional amendment placed on the ballot by the anti-family California Legislature, all it takes is a state court lawsuit to eliminate parental consent for child marriages. Under Prop. 3, children will be confused, used, and abused.
Please grasp these legal facts:
Same-sex marriages are completely legal in California; therefore, Prop. 3 is unnecessary even for supporters of same-sex marriage.
What would Prop. 3 do? It would insert eight extremely broad and subjective words, “The right to marry is a fundamental right,” into the California Constitution.
Remember, a state constitutional amendment supersedes any statute (regular law) in conflict with it.
Therefore, if this proposed state constitutional amendment is approved by voters, lawsuits can be filed, claiming a constitutional “right to marry” whomever and whatever, thus superseding and rendering “unconstitutional” all the marriage standards, definitions, and limits in the Family Code, the Penal Code, and other statutes.
As a legal outcome, Prop. 3 would usher in unrestricted child marriages, incestuous marriages, polygamy (multiple spouses), bigamy (multiple marriages at the same time), and even “marriages” with animals and things (Prop. 3 does not require human spouses) – the sky’s the limit.
Please share this with others, including those who support same-sex marriages. Invite them to see the facts for themselves at LearnAboutProp3.com. Let the majority of Californians UNITE AGAINST marriage anarchy, which hurts kids.
You know Prop. 3 is awful, but don’t know how to stop it? Here’s how:
Tell 3 friends Prop. 3 would usher in unrestricted child marriages, incestuous marriages, polygamy (multiple spouses), bigamy (multiple marriages at the same time), even “marriage” with animals and things (it doesn’t require human spouses).
And you don’t have to convince or argue. Just email 3 friends the above list and simply recommend they visit LearnAboutProp3.com for documentation.
Please take a couple minutes today to do this easy task. And if you know a pastor, email him too. You can help open the eyes of millions of California voters!
“Early voting” can begin as soon as Monday, October 7 for those who’ve already received their ballots. So please act now — tell 3 friends you oppose Prop. 3’s marriage anarchy!
If Prop. 3 passes, and “The right to marry is a fundamental right” is inserted into the State Constitution, all it would take is a California court striking down as “unconstitutional” any existing statutory marriage definition, standard, or limit in the Family Code, Penal Code, and other Codes. The result would be permitting “marriages” with whomever and whatever. One of the many facts found at LearnAboutProp3.com
Saturday, September 14, 2024, 11:18 am | Randy Thomasson
On behalf of your values and telling the truth that the Big Media doesn’t report, SaveCalifornia.com has been posting on our social media WHY “monster” fires spread so rapidly, HOW the Democrat Party politicians’ “crime” bills are deceptive, and WHERE anti-parental-rights and pro-transsexuality judges come from:
P.S. Our post was about the rapid, even explosive, spread of wildfires, not the initial spark or flame. Because anybody can set a fire, but only the government can manage “public lands” to prevent little fires from becoming “monster” fires. Here’s a sample of the many evidences backing up our post:
“California’s Record Wildfires Spurred by Millions of Hidden Dead Trees,” Newsweek, June 12, 2024: California’s record wildfires may have been spurred on by millions of hidden dead trees, according to a new study … Stéphanie Horion from the University of Copenhagen’s Department of Geosciences and Natural Resource Management who worked on the study, said, “An abundance of combustible materials” is necessary for “a wildfire to erupt” … “and dead trees burn well.”
“Environmentalists Destroyed California’s Forests,” Edward Ring, California Policy Center, September 10, 2020: “And since 1990, when the environmentalist assault on California’s timber industry began in earnest, its timber industry has shrunk to half its former size. Reviving California’s timber industry, so the collective rate of harvest equals the collective rate of growth, would go a long way towards solving the problem of catastrophic fires. Instead, California’s environmentalists only redouble their nonsense arguments. Expect these fires to justify even more “climate change” legislation that does nothing to clear the forests of overgrown tinder, and everything to clear the forests, and the chaparral, of people and towns.”
P.S. The detail of the above post is the Democrat Party legislator’s bill that was signed, AB 1960, while being described as imposing “harsh penalties” against retail thieves, don’t impose any additional prison time except “If the loss or property value exceeds fifty thousand dollars ($50,000), the court shall impose an additional term of one year,” followed by higher tiers.
In contrast, Prop. 36 on the California ballot would make theft, regardless of the value, a felony offense if the offender has two or more past theft convictions, and would increase penalties for offenders who steal, damage or destroy property with two or more offenders (stealing or destroying $50,000 of property is not necessary to be sentenced to more prison time).
P.S. The above post is a reminder that, in addition to unconstitutional Democrat Party judges, RINO governors are a mixed bag, appointing a slew of bad judges who believe neither in constitutional rights, nor natural/God-given/pre-constitutional rights.
Saturday, September 7, 2024, 10:18 am | Randy Thomasson
Sept. 26, 2009: Bridegroom Milton Mbhele, with his four brides at their western wedding in South Africa, which recognizes polygamous marriages.
Get ready to vote NO on unrestricted child marriages, incestuous marriages, polygamy (multiple spouses), bigamy (multiple marriages at the same time), and even people-animal and people-object marriages.
Because that’s what Proposition 3 would functionally legalize.
Prop. 3, placed on the ballot by the California State Legislature, would insert into the California Constitution these 8 words: “The right to marry is a fundamental right.” Now, do you see a limit on number of spouses, an age prerequisite, or a requirement that a spouse be human? And do you see any prohibition of incestuous marriages or multiple simultaneous marriages? They’re not there.
This extremely broad and subjective phrase would legalize much more than if Prop. 3’s proponents had written definitive words, such as, “Marriage is limited to two persons at any one time, who are not close blood relatives, with the written permission of a parent or legal guardian for a minor to marry.” But they didn’t, opting instead to radically permit any and all types of “marriages” in California.
If Prop. 3 passes, and “The right to marry is a fundamental right” is inserted into the State Constitution, all it would take is a California court striking down as “unconstitutional” any existing statutory marriage definition, standard, or limit in the Family Code, Penal Code, and other Codes. Because the State Constitution is the supreme law of California, with the power to preempt conflicting statutes. The legal result of Prop. 3 would be permitting “marriages” with whomever and whatever.
Please help others vote NO on Prop. 3. Here’s an excellent website that’s convincing reasonable people to oppose it. Visit LearnAboutProp3.com.
Realize that the most vulnerable persons who would be caught up in Prop. 3’s marital chaos would be children. Let’s care about kids and vote no on Prop. 3’s marriage anarchy!
States that have codified constitutions normally give the constitution supremacy over ordinary statute law. That is, if there is any conflict between a legal statute and the codified constitution, all or part of the statute can be declared ultra vires by a court, and struck down as unconstitutional. “Codified constitution,” Constitution article, Wikipedia
RSS 2.0 Feed