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.
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
RSS 2.0 Feed