Randy

SaveCalifornia.com Blog//

Archives for the ‘California Legislature’ Category

Just awful: Newsom signs AB 1955 to hide a child’s problems from parents

Monday, July 15, 2024, 6:05 pm | Randy Thomasson

Because of his presidential aspiration, this could have gone the other way. But for now, please spread this bad news to everyone you can. And thank you for anything you did against this evil Democrat Party / “LGBTQIA+” agenda bill, which was pushed by the Democrats’ “LGBTQ+ Caucus.”

Today, Monday, July 15, Democrat Party Governor Gavin Newsom issued a news release announcing, without comment, that he had signed 58 bills (including the anti-parent pro-“LGBTQIA+” AB 1955) and vetoed 2 bills.

By signing AB 1955 to force K-12 “public” schools to hide from parents their own child’s sexual confusion, Newsom has again demonstrated that he’s against God-given parental rights and for the evil “LGBTQIA+” agenda harming children (just like most Democrat politicians are).

AB 1955 by homosexual activist Chris Ward of San Diego and 11 other homosexual activists, plus two other Democrat Party legislators, was “gutted and amended” to legally prohibit any government-school employee or contractor from disclosing “any information related to a pupil’s sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression to any other person without the pupil’s consent.”

This outrageous bill is against parents, children, science, and health. It is being pushed because anti-parental-rights Democrat Party Attorney General of California Rob Bonta has no legal basis in state law to sue pro-family school boards that have parental rights policies on sexually-confused children. But with AB 1955 signed, he will in January 2025!

TAKE ACTION:

1. Please share this important SaveCalifornia.com update with others

2. Decide now to rescue your children and grandchildren, whatever it takes. Because AB 1955 will be California’s 14th government school sexual indoctrination law. See how at our special site, RescueYourChild.com.

Your Children are Being Targeted: Today’s “public schools” are not “our schools.” Instead, prostituting politicians, anti-family special interests, and union bosses own their immoral indoctrination centers to target and brainwash impressionable boys and girls. You Can Rescue Them: You can rescue your child by exiting the government system for the freedom and safety of homeschooling or church-schooling. Your child’s mind, heart, soul, and body are worth it, and your family will reap wonderful dividends.
From SaveCalifornia.com’s RescueYourChild.com

Vote no on Prop. 3 marriage anarchy on the California ballot

Tuesday, July 9, 2024, 10:37 am | Randy Thomasson

It’s a fact that federal courts — in California and nationwide — have legalized same-sex marriage.

Another fact is, that if someday in the future, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled states can decide on same-sex marriages, California’s 2010 Perry v. Schwarzenegger U.S. district court decision would contribute to still considering same-sex marriages valid and recognized in California.

Likewise, other rulings from the California Supreme Court — In re Marriage Cases in 2008 decided that the Prop. 22 statutory initiative passed by the voters in 2000 (which banned same-sex marriage) violated the California State Constitution, and 2009’s Strauss v. Horton ruling declaring same-sex marriages already licensed have perpetual, legal validity — mean same-sex marriage isn’t going away in California.

So why is Proposition 3 on California’s November 2024 ballot? Legislators who voted last year (78 Democrats and 10 Republicans) to place it on the ballot claim it’s only about same-sex marriage. But is that how it reads or, more importantly, what it would do?

Prop. 3’s eight very subjective and broadly-applicable words to be inserted into the State Constitution are “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.

Why wasn’t Prop. 3 written to say marriages of “any two adults” is valid or recognized in California? Because they know same-sex marriage is secure in California, but wanted to deceptively create marriage anarchy, including polygamy, bigamy, child marriages, incestuous marriages — even marriages with animals and objects. Because leftists didn’t want limits!

If Prop. 3 passes, the California Constitution would declare “a fundamental right…to marry,” with no definitions, standards, or limits. And whatever’s part of the state constitution that conflicts with California statutes (such as the Family Code or Penal Code) supersedes these regular laws.

Stop and realize all it takes is a lawsuit in state court claiming a constitutional right to “marry” whomever or whatever. If and when those lawsuits using Prop. 3 begin, very quickly, all the marital definitions, standards, and limits you’re used to would be eliminated — all because Prop. 3 renders them unconstitutional.

Once you understand the power of a state constitutional amendment and the Prop. 3’s deceptive language, what’s the real agenda of this purposefully deceptive legislative ballot measure?

Prop. 3’s eight subjective words would permit:

• Polygamy, where a few or several people all marry each other.
• Bigamy, where a person has two or more spouses simultaneously.
• “Child marriages” — where an adult and a child marry — when the courts rule PROP 3 eliminates the age of consent in the California Family Code.
• Incestuous marriages (between parents and children, between grandparents and children or grandchildren, between siblings, and between uncles or aunts and nieces or nephews).
• Marriages with animals or objects, because PROP 3 doesn’t require a spouse to be human.

What’s more, multiple spouses and spousal exemptions will greatly undermine the concept of fairness, a child’s best interest, and law and order:

• Who’s responsible for paying child support could be very confusing.
• Who’s covered by insurance and who are insurance beneficiaries could be very messy.
• With many “spouses,” who would make decisions for a comatose or otherwise incapacitated person?
• Financial manipulation could occur, as wealthy, elderly persons “marry” their children in order to avoid payment of inheritance taxes.
• Gang members — in and out of jail or prison — could all “marry” each other in order to avoid having to testify against their “spouses.”

These are just some of the problems Prop. 3 would usher in. If you dislike the thought of child brides, incest, polygamy, and animal abuse…if you oppose deceptive legislators…if you reject chaos-causing proposals…you’ll want to vote NO on Prop. 3’s marriage anarchy. And please tell everyone you know why they should vote NO.

Fundamental rights are a group of rights that have been recognized by the Supreme Court as requiring a high degree of protection from government encroachment. These rights are specifically identified in the Constitution (especially in the Bill of Rights) or have been implied through interpretation of clauses, such as under Due Process. These laws are said to be “fundamental” because they were found to be so important for individual liberty that they should be beyond the reach of the political process, and therefore, they are enshrined in the Constitution. Laws encroaching on a fundamental right generally must pass strict scrutiny to be upheld as constitutional.
“Fundamental Right,” Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School

URGENT: Demand Newsom veto anti-parent bill AB 1955

Saturday, June 29, 2024, 11:33 am | Randy Thomasson

Because Gavin Newsom now has more motivation to keep running for president, and since he hasn’t promised to sign AB 1955, please email and call to demand he veto this radical anti-parent, anti-local-schools bill.

Here’s Newsom’s web form, with SaveCalifornia.com’s easy instructions:

AB 1955 by homosexual activist Chris Ward of San Diego and 11 other homosexual activists, plus two other Democrat Party legislators, was “gutted and amended” in late May to legally prohibit any government-school employee or contractor from disclosing “any information related to a pupil’s sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression to any other person without the pupil’s consent.”

This outrageous bill is against parents, children, science, and health. It is being pushed because anti-parental-rights Democrat Party Attorney General of California Rob Bonta has no legal basis in current state law to sue pro-family school boards that have parental rights policies for sexually-confused children.

AB 1955, as amended May 22, according to the Democrat-run Legislative Counsel:

1. Would provide “resources” promoting “LGBTQ” as natural and beneficial to “LGBTQ” children and their parents and guardians:

“This bill would require the State Department of Education to develop resources or, as appropriate, update existing resources, for supports and community resources for the support of parents, guardians, and families of LGBTQ pupils and strategies to increase support for LGBTQ pupils, as specified.”

2. Would ban any school within California’s K-12 “public” school system from informing parents of “a pupil’s sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression…without the pupil’s consent” and would prohibit K-12 government schools from punishing an employee who “supported a pupil” by grooming children via pro-“LGBQT” “rights,” “work activities,” or “certain instruction”:

“This bill would prohibit school districts, county offices of education, charter schools, and the state special schools, and a member of the governing board or body of those educational entities, from enacting or enforcing any policy, rule, or administrative regulation that requires an employee or a contractor to disclose any information related to a pupil’s sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression to any other person without the pupil’s consent unless otherwise required by law, as provided. The bill would prohibit employees or contractors of those educational entities from being required to make such a disclosure unless otherwise required by law, as provided. The bill would prohibit employees or contractors of school districts, county offices of education, charter schools, or the state special schools, or members of the governing boards or bodies of those educational entities, from retaliating or taking adverse action against an employee on the basis that the employee supported a pupil in the exercise of specified rights, work activities, or providing certain instruction, as provided.”

“But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were thrown into the sea.”
Jesus Christ, Savior of the world and God in the flesh, in Mark 9:42