Thursday, November 7, 2024, 7:31 am | Randy Thomasson
Sadly, the sexual anarchy dressed up as “marriage equality” has passed in California, where too many voters are dumbed down and loathe to do critical thinking or their own research.
California’s corrupt, immoral Democrat Party officials made Prop. 3 easy to pass.
Instead of telling voters the facts — that Prop. 3 opens the door to legalize unrestricted child marriages, incestuous marriages, polygamy, bigamy, even “marriages” with animals and objects — the Democrat Party’s Attorney General, Secretary of State, and Legislative Analyst this summer conspired to write in the “Official Voter Information Guide” that Prop. 3 only “updates the Constitution to match what the federal courts have said about who can marry” and “there would be no change in who can marry.” Lies, lies, and more lies.
What’s next: Starting as soon as 2025, expect California state lawsuits using Prop. 3 to legalize marriages with whomever and whatever. Fear for the boys and girls who’ll be roped into unrestricted child marriages (parental permission no longer required), and feel for the young women deceived into polygamous marriages with multiple spouses. What’s more, perverse organizations in other Democrat-Party-controlled states will want to replicate marriage anarchy there too.
Thank you for standing with SaveCalifornia.com as we fought hard to inform reasonable Californians about how Prop. 3 collided with their values.
For the love of God and people, we informed as many Californians as we could about Prop. 3’s legal subjectivity, and urged them to send their friends to LearnAboutProp3.com.
If our side had $5 to $10 million to spend, the outcome could have been different. But evil has prevailed. Their scheme was set, the deception done, the lies led, fools fell for it, and human beings will indeed be harmed.
Other Facts:
In 2023, 88 Democrats + 10 RINOs placed ACA 5 on the ballot to become Prop. 3 (the 10 Republicans were Juan Alanis, Phillip Chen, Laurie Davies, Diane Dixon, Bill Essayli, Josh Hoover, Devon Mathis, Marie Waldron, Greg Wallis, and Scott Wilk)
Wealthy homosexual activists spent at least $1.43 million on lie-based ads to expand the reach of their Democrat Party official’s false ballot descriptions
California clergy did not organize and rise up against Prop. 3 like they did in 2008 to protect man-woman marriage licenses with Prop. 8
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 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