Randy

SaveCalifornia.com Blog//

Archives for the ‘Marriage’ Category

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

Our take on California’s 10 props on the fall ballot

Saturday, July 6, 2024, 7:49 am | Randy Thomasson
After delaying a few days so that Newsom & Co.’s fake “crime bill” could get on the ballot (it didn’t), California’s Secretary of State late on July 3 assigned proposition numbers to the 10 measures officially on the November 2024 ballot.

Here’s your first look at them with SaveCalifornia.com’s draft descriptions (you’re going to really want to vote NO on Prop. 3 and really want to vote YES on Prop. 36):

NO Prop. 2 wasting more taxpayer money on the wasteful, dumbing down, politically-correct K-12 government schools and community colleges. This $10 BILLION bond would cost much more than that with high interest, and is more expensive than a direct tax.

NO Prop. 3 permitting polygamy, bigamy, child marriages, incestuous marriages (and even people-animal and people-object marriages) by superseding all marriage statutes with a very broad and subjective state constitutional amendment claiming a “fundamental right..to marry” whomever and whatever (the sky’s the limit). Prop. 3 won’t make any practical difference on same-sex “marriage,” yet by superseding all existing marriage definitions, standards, and limits, this radical constitutional amendment would open up “Pandora’s Box.”

NO Prop. 4 funding another lie-based, subsidization of environmental wacko groups via a $10 BILLION bond, costing even more with interest, more expensive than a direct tax.

NO Prop. 5 permitting higher property taxes (attacking Prop. 13 from 1978) by lowering the “vote threshold from 66.67% to 55% for local special taxes and bond measures to fund housing projects and public infrastructure.”

NO Prop. 6 calling it “slavery” to make prisoners do work they don’t wish to do.

NO Prop. 32 increasing the state minimum wage to $18/hr. for all California employees (killing even more jobs and businesses).

NO Prop. 33 permitting local governments to enact rent control (resulting in less available rental housing, as landlords seeking income sell their rental houses and duplexes).

YES Prop. 34 requiring the ultra-left-wing, politically-active AIDS Healthcare Foundation of Los Angeles “to spend 98% of revenues from the federal discount prescription drug program on direct patient care.”

NO Prop. 35 taxing health care providers to pay for government the California state government’s “Medi-Cal” program (further increasing insurance rates for the rest of us).

YES Prop. 36 increasing penalties for theft and fentanyl possession, and repealing the worst parts of Prop. 47 from 2014.

Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone,
and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.
John Adams, U.S. founding father and 2nd U.S. president

AB 957 vetoed + new alert on second anti-parent bill AB 665

Saturday, September 23, 2023, 11:27 am | Randy Thomasson

SCROLL DOWN FOR YOUR AB 665 ACTION STEP

Late Friday, Sept. 22, Gavin Newsom vetoed AB 957, instructing judges in child custody cases to disfavor moral parents who are against the ‘trans’ confusion of their own children.

Thank you for following SaveCalifornia.com’s lead to call and email Newsom. We knew this radical anti-parent, anti-religious-freedom bill was vetoable. Because Newsom IS running for president. And he doesn’t want Republican candidates or media or even less-liberal Democrats in other states saying “Hey, you sign a bill against parents, against religious freedom, and in favor of the ‘trans’ agenda targeting our children!”

Indeed, in Newsom’s Sept. 22 veto message, he demonstrated he’s AGAINST biological facts and moral values for children, writing, “I appreciate the passion and values that led the author to introduce this bill. I share a deep commitment to advancing the rights of transgender Californians, an effort that has guided my decisions through many decades in public office.”

So, instead of criticizing AB 957 on substance, he said he didn’t like its violation of separation of powers, writing, “I urge caution when the Executive and Legislative branches of state government attempt to dictate – in prescriptive terms that single out one characteristic – legal standards for the Judicial branch to apply.” Wow, in his quest to avoid being known as the uberliberal, power-hungry activist he is, Newsom’s even willing to sound like a constitutionalist!

Yet Newsom then revealed his real concern — that signing AB 957 could provoke conservative Republican states to pass laws instructing judges to disfavor pro-transsexuality parents — when he warned, “Other-minded
elected officials, in California and other states, could very well use this strategy to diminish the civil rights of vulnerable communities
.”

So, there you have it. Gavin Newsom is against the natural family, against parental rights, against biological facts, and against the best interests of children. But he’s running for president (he’s waiting for the White House Occupant to step aside), and your flood of phone calls and web form messages reminded Newsom how unpopular AB 957 was.

I congratulate everyone who opposed this evil bill — this is your victory! Now please use the same strategy to deluge Newsom with opposition to the other big, bad, anti-parent bill, AB 665, which would permit the anti-family Establishment Left to manipulate pre-teens and teens to somehow “consent” to leave their parents.

Remember, AB 665 would permit children 12 years and up, who are neither harming themselves nor are victims of abuse, to “consent” to “mental health treatment or counseling services” and go live at a “residential shelter.” Again, current law requires parental consent, but this bill wipes out God-given parental rights.

PLEASE ACT NOW: Urge Newsom to veto AB 665 by calling his office, Monday-Friday, 9-5 at 916-445-2841. When a staffer answers, tell the staffer paid to take your simple message: “I’m calling to urge the Governor to veto the anti-parent bill AB 665.” Please also use Newsom’s web form (on the right-hand side of the page, select “An Active Bill,” then scroll down to select AB 665, then select “Con” to oppose). He has until October 14 to sign or veto bills, but could decide anytime on AB 665. Make Newsom realize how unpopular this radical bill is!

Families were created to make up for what evolution did not provide, namely a way by which men could be induced to support the children they beget and care for the women they impregnate. But since marriage is a social invention, we have learned how it can be undercut by people who think that their lives will be fuller, their opportunities greater, and their burdens fewer if they are allowed to treat sex as recreation, children as toys, and income as an obligation of government rather than a result of work.
“The Family Way” by pro-family social scientist James Q. Wilson (1931-2012) on January 7, 2003