Thursday, July 13, 2023, 1:34 pm | Randy Thomasson
It’s truly evil and harmful to children and society that Thursday morning on July 13th, the Democrat-controlled California Senate passed a legally powerful, radical, and completely subjective definition of “marriage,” which, if foolish voters agree to add it to the State Constitution, would be dreadful.
Thank you for everyone who called. You did your job, SaveCalifornia.com fought hard, but the Senate Democrats were wicked and the Senate Republicans did not fight for you.
On the California State Senate floor, 13 Democrats spoke for, and only 1 Republican (Brian Dahle) spoke weakly against, ACA 5.
If approved by a majority of California voters, it would deceptively insert 8 very broad, non-specific words, “The right to marry is a fundamental right,” into the California State Constitution.
Yet ACA 5 has no definitions of marriage or spouse, and no limit on spouses. Placing marriage subjectivity into the California State Constitution and calling it a fundamental right, above all other marriage-regulating statutes and every other marriage standard (such as number of persons in the marriage, minimum age to be a spouse, prohibitions against incestuous marriages, the assumption that a spouse be a person, etc.) renders current marriage laws unapplicable. ACA 5 powerfully erases all marriage “limitations” and boundaries!
Yet, despite having our analysis, not one Republican state senator voted no or exposed ACA 5’s radical legal effect – the very broad and subjective “right to marry,” with NO definitions, NO standards, and NO boundaries.
Meanwhile, most of the Democrats speaking in favor of ACA 5 were open homosexuals, who childishly said a vote against ACA 5 was a vote to hate them personally. Especially disgusting were the Democrat senators who stood and spoke to either reject or redefine Christianity as “justification” for this radical, anti-family, immoral bill.
And don’t forget that, on June 26 in the lower house, the California State Assembly, 58 Democrats and 9 Republicans voted for this monstrosity. The Republicans were Juan Alanis, Phillip Chen, Laurie Davies, Diane Dixon, Bill Essayli, Josh Hoover, Devon Mathis, Marie Waldron, and Greg Wallis.
ACA 5 will go on the November 2024 ballot as a proposed state constitutional amendment. Today, please share this with your friends so reasonable Californians can plan now to vote NO next year. Let’s unite against polygamy, “child marriages,” incestuous “marriages,” and people-object “marriages”!
And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.” Jesus Christ, Savior of the world and God in the flesh, in Matthew 19:4-6
JULY 14, 2023 UPDATE: More time, so act today! The unconstitutional, anti-parent, anti-free-speech, anti-religious-freedom bill AB 957 didn’t come up for a vote in the State Senate prior to the Legislature adjourning July 13 (legislators return August 14). So, keep exposing and opposing AB 957 — see your action steps below.
* * *
This is your opportunity! A “deal” to protect religious parents in AB 957 has been violated, and this bad bill is in trouble!
SaveCalifornia.com’s July 7 “Capitol drop” of hard-hitting facts provides the “road” for you to “drive on.” When you call to say AB 957 is still bad and why, they’ll know what you’re telling the truth.
Our AB 957 State Senate floor alert on July 7 (Written in liberal-sounding language that Democrats understand)
SENATE FLOOR ALERT, MONDAY, JULY 10
AB 957 (Wilson) – OPPOSE A broken deal = a broken bill
AB 957 dishonors Judiciary Committee members and violates their public promises to require the bill be amended to ensure religious parents aren’t “dinged” in family court.
The July 3 amendments fail to protect religious parents, fail to honor the express will of committee members, and sully the reputation of the California State Senate.
Analysis of the July 3 amendment to AB 957
As amended, AB 957 continues to require “a parent’s affirmation of the child’s gender identity or gender expression” in order to avoid a family court judge disfavoring and denying custodial-parent status to a non-affirming parent.
AB 957 still discriminates against otherwise loving parents who have a sincere religious faith by declaring:“As used in this paragraph, the health, safety, and welfare of the child includes, among other comprehensive factors, a parent’s affirmation of the child’s gender identity or gender expression. Affirmation includes a range of actions and will be unique for each child, but in every case must promote the child’s overall health and well-being.” — AB 957’s July 3 amendment to Family Code §3011(a)(1)(B)
This amendment is double-speak. The first sentence instructs judges that health, safety, and welfare cannot exist for a transitioning child without the inclusion of “a parent’s affirmation of the child’s gender identity or gender expression.” Then, in the second sentence, it claims “affirmation” can mean other things, but then absolutely demands “but in every case must promote” a transitioning child’s “overall health and well-being” — words synonymous with the bill’s revised definition of health, safety, and welfare, which now “includes… a parent’s affirmation of the child’s gender identity or gender expression.” This creates a new requirement in family court that a custody-seeking parent must “affirm” the gender-transition of a child. Consequently, AB 957’s new edict “dings” religious parents who disagree with gender fluidity, threatening to deny otherwise good parents custodial-parent status and other custody and visitation rights.
In light of the absolute “affirmation” mandate and the severe lack of religious accommodation in the amended bill, the July 5 Senate Floor Analysis is misleading and inaccurate where it claims: “This bill does not compel the court to come to a particular outcome based on this factor or override the court’s discretion to reach a determination about the child’s best interest in light of all of the facts; it merely makes explicit the fact that affirmance of a child’s gender identity or gender expression is an important component of a child’s overall health, safety, and welfare which should be considered by the family court.”
On the contrary, AB 957 doesn’t say “affirmation” of child’s gender identity or gender expression” is “important,” but does say “affirmation” is required because the revised definition of health, safety, and welfare of a transitioning child now always “includes” verbal support – “affirmation” – of that gender transition. What’s more, in its amendment of Family Code §3011(a)(1)(B), AB 957 pounds in its exclusion of religious parents who disagree with gender fluidity by mandating “affirmation…in every case must promote” a transitioning child’s “overall health and well-being,” — synonymous with health, safety, and welfare, which now “includes… a parent’s affirmation of the child’s gender identity or gender expression.”
Senate Judiciary members on June 13 demanded AB 957 be amended to ensure religious accommodation – but the July 3 amendments do nothing of the sort
Senator Benjamin Allen: “This is an incredibly sensitive topic because the relationship between a parent and child is so sacrosanct…I certainly want to make sure that just because someone is religious, for example, and there’s nothing that they do as a parent that would impact the health and welfare and mental well-being of the child — they accept the child’s decisions but they struggle with it themselves – I would certainly want to make sure that person wasn’t dinged under a custody dispute in the context of this bill…I would like the author and the chair to spend some time working together on tightening up some of the language so that we can make sure that a parent — for whom we have no concern about impacting the mental health of the child, but who may have a personal, perhaps a religious, conflict with gender fluidity — wouldn’t be dinged if we don’t have a concern about their ability to be a good parent to that child. That’s my concern, I think, looking at this bill. And I know that there’s conversations happening between the author and the chair that I hope will be fruitful over the course of the next few weeks so that we can tighten up the language and get to a place that I think meets the goal of the author, while also addressing what I hear as the legitimate concerns of some folks on the opposition.”
Senator Anna Caballero: “I want to encourage you to continue the discussion, and I reserve the right not to support it on the floor if it doesn’t change — ’cause I think there’s challenges with exactly what does it mean. And I don’t think we want to send something to the court that causes confusion or wrong decisions.”
Senator Angelique Ashby: “I’m going to support you today, Assemblywoman Wilson, but I’m going to join my colleagues in asking you to work with Senator Umberg as Judiciary Chair on adding some clarifying language.”
Senator Tom Umberg (Chair): “We will continue to work to make sure that the bill, as interpreted by the court, will be done in a way that is consistent with your view and our view of public policy…We will continue to work to make sure that — Senator Allen’s point — that if you have a parent who — perhaps he has a religious belief that is not consistent with someone wishing to transition but is unconditionally loving and tolerant, that that doesn’t preclude that parent having custodial rights. Is that your understanding also?”
Assemblymember Lori Wilson (AB 957 Author): “Absolutely. And I think, with the language that we have, it would say that. But I get that there might be some lack of clarity that some of our senators, who I adore, have concern with. And I think there is opportunity for us to continue that discussion as a part of the legislative process…I will work with Senator Umberg, I will work with Assemblymember Maienschein, both heads of our judiciary system within our legislative bodies, to make sure that by the time this passes in the Senate and the Assembly and gets to the governor’s desk, that it provides the most clarity possible, allowable, without creating a checklist…but I am definitely open…for discussion and amendments.”
The amended AB 957 still “dings” religious parents in a custody dispute by failing to protect moms and dads who disagree with a child’s gender transition. In a free society, we must not punish these otherwise good parents by taking away their kids. Oppose the discriminatory AB 957.
Wednesday, July 5, 2023, 2:28 pm | Randy Thomasson
We’ve provided the eye-opening, horrible facts about ACA 5. And we’re empowering the calls you will make. Please call Sacramento now!
Our facts delivered to state senators about ACA 5 means there’s a greater chance to prevent it from passing. Because proposed constitutional amendments require a two-thirds vote (27 in the 40-member State Senate). And with 32 Democrats, ACA 5 can be defeated by the July 14 “summer recess” deadline if 6 Democrats don’t vote for it and neither do any of the 8 Republican senators.
Now that state senators know that ACA 5 would open up Pandora’s Box, they’ll know you know it’s bad too when you call. We need to a flood of calls right now exposing and opposing the radical ACA 5!
PLEASE TAKE ACTION TODAY:
STEP #1: Call your own California state senator anytime (find yours here). In your live phone call or recorded voicemail message, state your name, say you live in the district, give your voting address, and say, “Don’t you dare vote for the marriage anarchy of ACA 5. This radical measure opens the door to polygamy, child marriages, incestuous marriages, and more. ACA 5 is not about same-sex marriage, but about blowing up marriage boundaries. Vote NO.”
Step #2: Say the same when you leave anonymous voicemail messages 7pm to 8am for the following 8 Republicans and 21 deciding-vote Democrats:
8 Republicans:
Brian Dahle 916-651-4001 and 530-294-5000 Shannon Grove 916-651-4012 and 661-323-0443 Brian Jones 916-651-4040 and 619-596-3136 Janet Nguyen 916-651-4036 and 714-374-4000 Roger Niello 916-651-4006 and 916-464-3980 (ignorantly supported ACA 5 in committee) Rosilicie Ochoa Bogh 916-651-4023 and 909-335-0271 Kelly Seyarto 916-651-4032 and 951-280-1260 Scott Wilk 916-651-4021 and 661-729-6232 (ignorantly supported ACA 5 in committee)
21 deciding-vote Democrats:
Benjamin Allen 916-651-4024 and 310-318-6994 Marie Alvarado-Gil 916-651-4004 and 916-933-8680 Bob Archuleta 916-651-4030 and 562-406-1001 Angelique Ashby 916-651-4008 and 916-651-1529 Catherine Blakespear 916-651-4038 and 760-642-0809 Anna Caballero 916-651-4014 and 559-264-3070 Bill Dodd 916-651-4003 and 707-224-1990 María Elena Durazo 916-651-4026 and 213-483-9300 Steve Glazer 916-651-4007 and 925-754-1461 Lena Gonzalez 916-651-4033 and 323-277-4560 Melissa Hurtado 916-651-4016 and 661-395-2620 Monique Limón 916-651-4019 and 805-988-1940 Dave Min 916-651-4037 and 949-223-5472 Steve Padilla 916-651-4018 and 760-335-3442 Anthony Portantino 916-651-4025 and 818-409-0400 Richard Roth 916-651-4031 and 951-680-6750 Susan Rubio 916-651-4022 and 909-469-1110 Lola Smallwood-Cuevas 916-651-4028 and 213-745-6656 Henry Stern 916-651-4027 and 818-876-3352 Tom Umberg 916-651-4034 and 714-558-3785 Aisha Wahab 916-651-4410 and 510-794-3900
ACA 5 FACTS DELIVERED TO REPUBLICAN AND DECIDING-VOTE DEMOCRAT STATE SENATORS
Assembly Constitutional Amendment 5 would place a proposition on the California ballot to insert these operative words into the California State Constitution: “The right to marry is a fundamental right.”
While these words may sound positive and innocuous, we
must remind ourselves that what a bill does is more important than what
a bill says. Consider how experienced attorneys defending their clients
in civil court try to find definitions, lack of definitions, and “holes” in the
law. How would they analyze the very broad, non-specific language of ACA 5?
1. Undefined text: The eight, key words of ACA 5, “The right to marry is a fundamental right,” do not define “marry.” What is “marry”? California’s Family Code does not contain the word “marry.” If ACA 5 proponents were to argue that it’s so obvious, that it doesn’t need definition, challenge them to amend their proposal to define “marry” or amend it to instead use “marriage,” which is replete throughout the Family Code. As sharp attorneys know, undefined words in the Constitution or statutes make the text of laws vulnerable to re-interpretation, altering, and abuse. Yet, in addition to the word “marry,” there are other serious problems with ACA 5.
2. Undefined number of spouses: ACA 5 does not define or limit the number of people who can “marry” each other. While the current language of Proposition 8 (nullified by Perry v. Schwarzenegger in 2010) defines both legal marriage, spouse, and number of spouses — “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California” — ACA 5 does not mention “a” or “one” or provide any other terminology, definition, or limit to the number of persons who can “marry” each other. While ACA 5 proponents might point to Family Code §300 (“Marriage is a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between two persons”) both the constitutional power of ACA 5 and its “fundamental right” declaration supersede any “limiting” statutes. If ACA 5 goes into the State Constitution, could three or four or more people all “marry” each other because it’s their “fundamental right,” with nothing prohibiting their “constitutional” arrangement? Similarly, could one person marry multiple people, thus legalizing polygamy through the authority of “The right to marry is a fundamental right”? These are valid questions due to the lack of definition and the myriad legal “holes” of this measure.
3. Undefined age prerequisite: Similar
to its missing number of persons who “marry,” ACA 5 lacks age prerequisites for
marriage. Because if “the right to marry is a fundamental right” is in the
California Constitution, providing strict scrutiny instructions to both
the California Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court, it would supplant age
limits. Could “child marriages” become more commonplace under ACA 5? Without
age standards, it’s legally plausible.
4. No prohibition of incestuous
“marriages”: Following the above reasoning, under ACA
5, could fathers or mothers or children or siblings “marry” each other? This
proposal doesn’t prohibit it. Even if ACA 5 proponents cite Penal Code §285 prohibiting
and punishing incest, or other laws regulating relations of consanguinity, if the
California Constitution contains “The right to marry is a fundamental right,”
neither the Penal Code or the Family Code can usurp this higher legal standard.
Therefore, ACA 5 could produce unexpected, unpopular consequences.
5. No definition of spouse: If
ACA 5 pushes aside the Penal Code, the Family Code, and other statutes due to
its powerful, hierarchical position in the California Constitution and its
declared “fundamental right” status in both the state and federal courts,
unimaginable results may become manifest. For example, since ACA 5 does not
mention or define “spouse,” could one argue a “fundamental right” to “marry” an
animal, an object, or even “themself”? Since ACA 5 never defines the persons
(or objects) that can “marry,” the sky’s the limit, with the “right to marry” unassailable
as part of the State’s supreme law of the land, amended by the People and
expressing the will of the People. By being overly-broad and non-specific, is
ACA 5 “opening Pandora’s Box”? This proposal challenges our common expectations
of jurisprudence.
6. Constitutional “fundamental rights”
trump other laws: Here is the legal impact of a “fundamental
right,” as explained by the Legal Information Institute of Cornell Law School (https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fundamental_right):
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.
7. Unnecessary: Many
supporters of same-sex marriage view ACA 5 as unnecessary, since the California
State Constitution, Article 7.5 (Proposition 8 from 2008, stating, “Only
marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California”) was
nullified by both Perry v. Schwarzenegger in 2010 and Obergefell v.
Hodges in 2015. Same-sex marriage is already legal, with gay and lesbian
couples enjoying full legal status in all of California’s 58 counties.
Avoid unforeseen consequences – oppose ACA 5’s
overly-broad, non-specific text
RSS 2.0 Feed