Randy

SaveCalifornia.com Blog//

Archives for the ‘Judges’ Category

Ruling on pro-life centers could also stop AB 2943

Thursday, June 28, 2018, 6:27 pm | Randy Thomasson

If you’re sick and tired of the Democrat rulers of California trying to ban or punish any moral values they disagree with, here’s some real hope for you.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s big decision recognizing the First Amendment right of pro-life crisis pregnancy centers to NOT be forced to promote values that they oppose (e.g., killing preborn babies via abortion) has set a key precedent for the protected speech of other organizations and business owners with moral values.

As the pro-family legal organization Liberty Counsel notes (quoting from the June 26 opinion in National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA) v. Becerra):

This case will also have an impact on laws that seek to ban counsel for unwanted same-sex attractions, behavior, or identity (SOCE). The opinion explicitly adopts the arguments Liberty Counsel has made all along in SOCE cases, which is that “professional speech” cannot be exempted as some “new category of speech.”

The opinion states: “The dangers associated with content-based regulations of speech are also present in the context of professional speech. As with other kinds of speech, regulating the content of professionals’ speech pose[s] the inherent risk that the Government seeks not to advance a legitimate regulatory goal, but to suppress unpopular ideas or information… Take medicine, for example. ‘Doctors help patients make deeply personal decisions, and their candor is crucial.’ Throughout history, governments have ‘manipulat[ed] the content of doctor-patient discourse’ to increase state power and suppress minorities.'”Justice Thomas notes that professional disagreements about the efficacy of professional services cannot be used to suppress speech.

Therefore, have hope! As you know, AB 2943 banning the free speech of counselors, ministries, churches that help people overcome unwanted homosexual or transsexual desires is advancing through the Democrat-controlled California State Legislature. These Democrat politicians don’t care about your basic liberties — they just do the bidding of their tyrannical special-interest supporters (“LGBT’ groups, Planned Parenthood abortionists, etc.)

So even though it’s probable that the Democrat rulers of California will pass AB 2943, it’s also highly probable that the right lawsuit or lawsuits could use National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA) v. Becerra to win a future U.S. Supreme Court victory that broadly protects moral speech in America. A success here would not only strike down AB 2943, thus protecting counselors who help adults overcome homosexuality or transsexuality, but would also affirm the right of counselors to help minors who struggle with homosexuality or transsexuality (which Governor Jerry Brown and the Democrats banned in 2012).

This is why I’m asking you to use the White House web form to send a strong message to President Donald Trump. Urge him to “Nominate a strict constructionist and originalist like Neil Gorsuch who will be loyal to the written Constitution, not loyal to their feelings or liberal revisionism like the four leftists currently on the high court. And please don’t nominate William Pryor, who has been inconsistent and even unconstitutional in his rulings.”

“..on every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was past.”

No surrender on marriage or homosexuality

Friday, June 26, 2015, 4:11 pm | Randy Thomasson

VIDEO: Here I am on Sacramento TV representing real marriage and the written Constitution and here too

After doing TV, radio, and newspaper interviews blasting the U.S. Supreme Court’s unconstitutional 5-4 opinion attacking marriage and states’ rights, I took a photo of the rainbow flag being draped from the State Capitol by Democrat homosexual activists (see below), and went back to my office to consider what to write you.

And I want to remind you of something. No matter what any judge or politician or law or poll says, marriage has been, is, and forever will be for a man and a woman. Because homosexual “marriages” are counterfeit and false.

Consider these self-evident truths:

1. You’re born either male or female, as determined by chromosomes (a male inherits a Y chromosome from his father, but a female does not).

2. You need something from a man and something from a woman to conceive a baby through the miracle of procreation.

3. A man and a woman fit together perfectly and healthily (like a plumber knows there are male and female pipe fittings).

4. The only human pair that can achieve coitus are a man and a woman.

5. Children do best inside and out with a married father and mother under the same roof.

Bottom line, if you don’t have a man and a woman, you don’t have marriage. I’m going to keep saying this self-evident truth and I encourage you to do the same.

What’s more, on a legal level, the U.S. Supreme Court’s opinion by a bare minimum of judicial activists on the bench is simply unconstitutional, completely illegitimate, and should be rejected by you, by pastors, by governors, and by everyone who knows that “the law” is what’s written in our Constitution, according to the original intent of its drafters. We each need to explain this to others to help them stop thinking that judges make the law — not in a republic they don’t!

TAKE IMMEDIATE ACTION TO LOVE OTHERS: Please post your comments along with talking points from SaveCalifornia.com’s June 26 news release (scroll down to see it) on news media sites. Wherever there’s a news story you can usually post a comment. This way, you can explain the truth about marriage and the Constitution to people who are wondering about it. Please spread the truth this way!

BerkeleyPhoto_small_062615The truth about marriage and our Constitution over the
80 Freeway in Berkeley after the Supremes’ opinion

rainbowflagstatecapitol_smallThe hijacking of God’s rainbow, hung June 26 by homosexuals
from the State Assembly patio with permission of the ruling Democrats

berkeley2bMore truth being shown to motorists in Berkeley

You can also post the truth about homosexuality when you comment on news sites. SaveCalifornia.com’s Not Born This Way has eye-opening information to change minds.

And here are good articles on the reality of man-woman marriage and the delusion of homosexual “marriages”:

Matt Walsh: Gay Marriage Still Doesn’t Exist, No Matter What the Supreme Court Says

Top Christian Resources on the Marriage Debate (Books, Articles, Videos, Podcasts on Gay Marriage/Same-Sex Marriage)

From SaveCalifornia.com’s June 26 news release:

Facts:

1. Marriage licenses and regulation are not in the United States Constitution, are therefore the jurisdiction of voters in individual states (9th and 10th Amendments; Article IV, Section 4).

2. Article IV, Section 4 guarantees to every state “a republican form of government” — meaning 1) no monarchy and 2) no lawless mob rule, but a government of written laws representing the will of the people, who are sovereign. State constitutions represent the People’s will on marriage, which the federal judiciary must affirm. (See footnote recording James Madison’s definition of republican government as “a republican constitution and its existing laws” http://constitution.findlaw.com/article4/annotation18.html#t322)

3. The 10th Amendment explicitly says powers that don’t belong to the federal government, or what the Constitution does not prohibit among the states, are state powers. Therefore, marriage is under the states’ jurisdiction.

4. The 14th Amendment is one of three post-Civil War amendments and was about race — giving black former slaves the same legal rights of white freemen — not about marriage. The Amendment applied to the states what was already a federal right enshrined in the 5th Amendment — that no one should be killed (deprived of life), imprisoned or enslaved (deprived of liberty), or deprived of their property without a court order (due process of law). Further, the Equal Protection Clause in no way requires the recognition of same-sex “marriages” because homosexual couples are not the same as heterosexual couples. They cannot have a conjugal union that produces children, and one of the primary purposes of marriage is to bind together fathers and mothers for the benefit of the children they bring into the world.

Authorities — the Constitution of the United States:

Article IV, Section 4: “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.”http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

5th Amendment: “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html

9th Amendment: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/ninth_amendment

10th Amendment: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/tenth_amendment

14th Amendment, Section 1: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_amendments_11-27.html

Get the picture that there are facts, evidence, and truth for you to know, embrace, and explain to others? Time to speak out! Let’s stand together as we boldly love for all that’s good and real for children and families!

“A government of laws, an not of men.”
U.S. Founding father John Adams in 1775

 

The shaky future of Prop. 8 may depend on one judge

Wednesday, March 27, 2013, 7:09 am | Randy Thomasson

In the past 24 hours, I’ve defended natural, man-woman marriage on all 4 English-language TV stations in Sacramento, including this good interview on Fox40. SaveCalifornia.com’s strong voice for real marriage, natural genders, and what’s best for children was also seen and heard in Los Angeles, San Diego, the San Francisco Bay Area, and in various national media outlets.

After reading the U.S. Supreme Court transcript of the March 26 oral arguments, my strong belief is Proposition 8, California’s Marriage Amendment, will be decided by one man on the divided court — Anthony Kennedy.

The high court’s “swing vote” is a non-constructionist who believes in the notion of homosexual “rights,” not realizing that  homosexuality is a behavior and not an immutable characteristic, which is required to be considered as a “suspect class” with “civil rights” protection.

Still, Kennedy seems to be a traditionalist in support of a married father and mother being in a child’s best interest, calls homosexual marriages “uncharted waters,” and doesn’t like the “odd rationale” of the Ninth Circuit, which deemed Prop. 8 “unconstitutional.”

See my statement to the media after the hearing

Hear the audio, read the transcript of the oral arguments

Our Republic is on very shaky ground when judges don’t follow the plain words and original intent of the written Constitution. This is why I’ve been telling people that the Prop. 8 case, as much as it matters as a role model for children, is more about our Republic than about marriage.

For no People will tamely surrender their Liberties, nor can any be easily subdued, when Knowledge is diffusd and Virtue is preservd. On the Contrary, when People are universally ignorant, and debauchd in their Manners, they will sink under their own Weight without the Aid of foreign Invaders.
Samuel Adams, the “Father of the American Revolution,” writing in 1775