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
A woman claiming she was sexual abused by a Catholic priest points to his photo among other accused abusers at Dec. 6, 2018 news conference in Orange County
SaveCalifornia.com provides this solely for educational purposes and does not support or oppose candidates for public office.
Yes, Kamala Harris sided with alleged sex abusers.
In 2004, when Harris became San Francisco’s district attorney, she inherited a collection of personnel files involving allegations of child sexual abuse by priests and employees of the San Francisco Archdiocese. And despite the cries of purported victims, Harris refused to share these files with those wanting to file civil lawsuits.
In her seven years as district attorney, Harris’s office did not proactively assist in civil cases against clergy sex abuse and ignored requests by activists and survivors to access the cache of investigative files that could have helped them secure justice, according to several victims of clergy sex abuse living in California who spoke to The Intercept.
“It went from Terence Hallinan going hundred miles an hour, full speed ahead, after the Catholic Church to Kamala Harris doing absolutely nothing and taking it backwards hundred miles an hour,” said Joey Piscitelli, a assault survivor, who a jury found had been molested as a student while attending Salesian College Preparatory, a Catholic high school in Richmond, California.
Here’s another article, from 2020, blowing the whistle on Kamala Harris ignoring victims of Catholic Church sexual abuse:
Years ago, a man named Joey Piscitelli wrote to Kamala Harris, who was then San Francisco’s District Attorney, about the plight of the catholic clergy sex abuse survivors. However, it fell on deaf ears.
According to Piscitelli, Kamala Harris never responded to him when he wrote to her about the abuse he had suffered at the hands of a local Catholic priest. Five years later, he wrote to her again urging her to release records on clergymen accused of sexual abuse to not only get justice for himself but also to help other survivors who were filing lawsuits, but Harris never responded.
“She did nothing”, said Piscitelli, who is now the Northern California spokesperson for the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP).
These facts should inform any Californian or American who is considering the character of Kamala Harris.
RSS 2.0 Feed