| |
SaveCalifornia.com Blog//
Archives for the ‘Marriage’ Category
Tuesday, February 15, 2011, 8:07 pm |
It’s wrong and sad that homosexual activists claim to be victims all the time ,when they’re busying squashing everyone else’s rights and values, and interrupting even special days that celebrate the romantic bond between a man and a woman.
On Monday, homosexual activists in California protested against defining marriage as between a man and a woman in acts of civil disobedience at county clerk’s offices, in San Diego, Los Angeles, Modesto, Fresno, Sacramento, San Jose, San Francisco, Martinez, Woodland, and Arcata. This came as the California Supreme Court prepares to opine on whether Prop. 8 proponents can defend the vote of the People when California Gov. Jerry Brown would not.
VIDEO: Homosexuals hijack Valentine’s Day
READ: KGO-TV reports: Randy Thomasson is one of the main critics of same-sex marriage. He is President of an organization called Save California. He tells ABC7, “If you don’t have marriage between a man and a woman, you just don’t have marriage.”
SAVECALIFORNIA.COM NEWS RELEASE
February 14, 2011
Randy Thomasson on Valentine’s Day assault on marriage
“If you don’t have a man and a woman, you just don’t have marriage”
Sacramento, California – SaveCalifornia.com President Randy Thomasson today issued the following statement regarding homosexual activists in California demanding marriage licenses in protest of natural man-woman marriage:
“Some people misunderstand what marriage really is. If marriage can mean anything, marriage will ultimately mean nothing. The beautiful creation of marriage is designed exclusively for a man and a woman, biologically, sexually, and reproductively. No relationship can be equated with or compared to marriage. For if you don’t have a man and a woman, you just don’t have marriage. This is why the people of California have consistently voted to protect marriage licenses for only a man and a woman. And it’s why the courts should respect what the California Constitution clearly states, that ‘all political power is inherent in the people.'”
Read our Prop. 8 federal appellate court amicus brief
Tags: SaveCalifornia.com
Posted in Marriage, Prop. 8 | Comments Off on The Valentine’s Day assault on real marriage
Tuesday, November 30, 2010, 4:42 pm |
READ: Amicus brief in Prop. 8 appeal filed by SaveCalifornia.com / Campaign for Children and Families
It doesn’t look good for the Prop. 8 federal court appeal in San Francisco on Dec. 6. The “randomly chosen” three-judge panel of the infamously liberal Ninth Circuit was announced Monday. The judges were originally put on the bench by Presidents Carter, Clinton, and G.W. Bush. Here’s the low-down from SCOTUSblog:
The Ninth Circuit Court on Monday released the names of the three Circuit judges who will hear next Monday the constitutional case over California’s Proposition 8 ban on same-sex marriage. The senior judge on the panel will be Judge Stephen R. Reinhardt, a former Los Angeles lawyer who is known widely as perhaps the most liberal judge on the federal courts. Another judge with a reputation mainly as a liberal, Michael Daly Hawkins, is on the panel; he is a former Arizona lawyer and prosecutor. The third member of the panel will be N. Randy Smith, a former Idaho lawyer and state judge.
Let me tell you about Stephen Reinhardt, the ultimate judicial activist: In 2009, he wrote an opinion calling the federal Defense of Marriage Act “unconstitutional”– despite the U.S. Constitution being silent on marriage and homosexuality. In 2007, Reinhardt ruled that partial-birth abortions are a constitutional guarantee. And in 2005, in a sex survey dispute, he ruled parents of elementary-age children in public schools give up any moral objections to their child’s education:
In the last two decades, Reinhardt has repeatedly ruled against the phrase “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance. Also, in 1996, he authored an opinion claiming that physician-assisted suicide was somehow “constitutional.” Reinhardt was nominated in 1980 by Jimmy Carter. He is married to Ramona Ripston, former executive director of the ACLU of Southern California.
As for the second judge, who is described as “liberal on social questions,” Michael Daly Hawkins, a Democrat and a Clinton appointee, gave a wide-ranging interview in 2003, in which he came across as a mushy moderate: “I think of myself as being entirely moderate in all things, but others might say otherwise,” he said. “My judicial philosophy is really pretty simple: people involved in the legal process should be treated fairly and judges should decide cases on the merits.” Note he said nothing about sticking with the written words of the U.S. Constitution!
The third judge on the Dec. 6 panel is a likely constitutionalist. Idaho-based Judge Norman Randy Smith is one of the court’s newest members and a Republican appointee of former President George W. Bush. Smith was confirmed in 2007 after being nominated by President George W. Bush. Born in Logan, Utah, Smith graduated from the Mormon-based Brigham Young University, as well as from the university’s law school.
So, if you ask me, I expect a 2-1 loss, with Prop. 8 ruled dead on a technicality. Remember that, in August, homosexual U.S. Judge Vaughn Walker refused to recognize any “standing” for the Prop. 8 proponents. The judge found it convenient to say so, because in an unprecedented action, both Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jerry Brown were derelict of duty, refusing to uphold the law (Prop. 8). If the Ninth Circuit panel agrees with this nonsense, it would be more than unconstitutional blindness — it would be malice against our Republic. It takes tremendous effort to ignore the California Constitution and the record of the November 2008 vote of the people. Both said and still say, “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”
The only practical hope I have is that Reinhardt is the most overturned judge in the United States. The fact that he’s on this panel could paint a big bulls-eye on him for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, who, while being pro-homosexuality is also mostly pro-law-and-order. If the Ninth Circuit refuses to recognize “standing” for the Prop. 8 proponents, Kennedy and the four other mostly constitutional judges (Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito) on the high court could.
SaveCalifornia.com is helping to stand up for marriage as the foundation of family and a essential role model for the next generation. In September, SaveCalifornia.com filed a well-done brief in the Prop. 8 appeal under our official name, Campaign for Children and Families. Expertly researched and written by our friends at Liberty Counsel, our brief argues that homosexuality cannot be considered for increased protection, like race, because it is (1) difficult to define, (2) impossible to classify, (3) is not immutable, (4) is subject to change, and (5) does not meet the legal criteria for increased constitutional protection. Our brief reminds the judges that the bulk of social science research overwhelmingly confirms that children do best with dual gender parents – a dad and a mom. We also demonstrate that gender definitely matters to the well-being of children. Finally, we explain that homosexuality presents serious physical, emotional, mental, and other health-related risks.
On Monday, Dec. 6, you can watch the two-hour hearing on C-SPAN, beginning at 10 a.m. PST.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
10th Amendment of the United States Constitution
“Haven’t you read the Scriptures?” Jesus replied. “They record that from the beginning ‘God made them male and female.’ And he said, ‘This explains why a man leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife, and the two are united into one.’ Since they are no longer two but one, let no one split apart what God has joined together.”
Matthew 19:4-6 NLT
Tags: SaveCalifornia.com
Posted in Judges, Marriage, Prop. 8 | Comments Off on Will Prop. 8 die on a technicality?
Friday, July 16, 2010, 10:47 am |
An analysis of the retirement of California Chief Justice Ron George
by SaveCalifornia.com President Randy Thomasson
Morally-liberal and a judicial activist at heart and in practice, Ron George, the chief justice of the California Supreme Court, has announced he won’t run for reelection in November.
George’s bowing out means the only Supreme Court justice on the November ballot is Carlos Moreno, a Gray Davis appointee who is even more to the left. Moreno officiated at homosexual weddings and was the only judge who voted to overturn Prop. 8 after it became part of the California Constitution. (SaveCalifornia.com provides this solely for educational purposes and does not support or oppose candidates.)
How will Ron George be remembered? Pro-family conservatives cannot forget that Ron George is a judicial activist who doesn’t care much about the written California Constitution.
In May 2008, George authored the infamous 4 to 3 decision inventing homosexual “marriages.” George based his ruling on the “equal protection” clause of Article 1, Section 7 of the California Constitution, which mirrors the post-Civil War 14th Amendment guaranteeing to black former slaves all the legal rights afforded white freemen.
But “equal protection” mean the laws must give equal opportunity to individuals no matter their race, not their behavior. Yet Ron George broke his pledge to defend the written California Constitution when he opined that couples (different from individuals) who are “gay or lesbian” (not in the Constitution) have the right to marriage licenses (which were not in the Constitution until Prop. 8 passed in Nov. 2008).
You see, Ron George lets his own beliefs trump his boss, which is the California Constitution. He invented homosexual “marriages” because he personally believes some people are born homosexuals (there is zero scientific evidence for this) just like some people are born black:
But as he read the legal arguments, the 68-year-old moderate Republican was drawn by memory to a long ago trip he made with his European immigrant parents through the American South. There, the signs warning “No Negro” or “No colored” left “quite an indelible impression on me,” he recalled in a wide-ranging interview Friday. “I think,” he concluded, “there are times when doing the right thing means not playing it safe.”
(Source: Los Angeles Times, May 18, 2008)
But that’s not all. Don’t forget 1997, when Ron George authored the 4 to 3 ruling striking down California state law requiring parental consent for a minor’s abortion. This was scandalous. After a pro-life justice retired, George led the charge to vacate the court’s earlier 4 to 3 ruling that had actually upheld the parental consent law. Gov. Pete Wilson had appointed the pro-abortion Ming Chin, and George took full opportunity to kill more babies.
In his horrible ruling, George hearkened back to his predecessor, Rose Bird, who had redefined the paperwork privacy clause in the California Constitution to somehow mean a teenager’s right to a tax-funded abortion. George expanded this unconstitutional “case law” to say that parents have absolutely no right to know about or to stop an abortion on their pre-teen and teen daughters.
Wait, there’s more. Ron George participated in several other bad rulings that violated the strict reading of the California Constitution or rulings that had nothing to do with the Constitution: requiring rental property owners to kill off their religious values and rent their own property to unmarried, fornicating couples (1996); inventing homosexual “second parent” adoptions (2003); forcing businesses that offer marriage benefits to the public to offer the same to homosexual couples (2005); and squashing the religious freedom of doctors who don’t want to artificially inseminate homosexuals (2008).
Who will replace Ron George on the Supreme Court? Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger will nominate a replacement for George, whose final day on the bench will be Jan. 2, 2011. That nomination will go on this year’s November ballot.
Article 6, Section 16 of the California Constitution says if a justice does not seek reelection, “the governor, before September 16, shall nominate a candidate.” That candidate will then stand for election “at the next general election,” i.e., Nov. 2, 2010. So if you like Schwarzenegger’s pick, you can vote yes; if you don’t like the nominee, you can vote no, and the next governor will do the nominating.
My take? Since Republican governors Ronald Reagan, George Deukmejian and Pete Wilson all nominated or elevated Ron George at one time or another, you can’t trust anyone to put judges on courts unless both the appointer and the appointee both swear to abide solely by the WRITTEN Constitution and its original intent, not what governors or judges think it should say.
“…the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them. The Executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community. The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither force nor will, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.”
Alexander Hamilton, leading author of The Federalist Papers, first
Secretary of the Treasury
Tags: SaveCalifornia.com
Posted in California Constitution, California Supreme Court, Life, Marriage | Comments Off on Not by God, but by George
|
|
| |
RSS 2.0 Feed