Randy

SaveCalifornia.com Blog//

Archives for the ‘Marriage’ Category

What’s at stake with Prop. 8 back in court

Monday, January 11, 2010, 12:55 pm |

What’s the deal with Prop. 8 being challenged in federal court?

As someone who has been fighting for marriage licenses and marriage rights since 1994 in the California Legislature and since 2003 in the courts, I can tell you a few things.

First of all, you need to know that homosexual activists are trying any means possible to knock down Californians’ 2008 vote to reserve marriage licenses for a man and a woman. These intolerant activists lost in state court, so now they’re trying the federal courts.

Ultimately, for homosexual activists, the case being heard today in San Francisco is about two goals:

1) Keeping the homosexual “marriage” agenda in the media to help them launch their own constitutional amendment next year for the 2012 ballot (they won’t be on the 2010 ballot, despite what you may have heard);

2) Working hard to have non-immutable homosexual behavior declared a civil right, something no federal court has ever said or ordered.

Because Judge Vaughn Walker is allowing unprecedented cross-examination of “witnesses” and has ordered the oral arguments posted on YouTube (he’s been temporarily blocked by the U.S. Supreme Court on an 8-1 vote), the judge is aiding the homosexual activists who want to charge up their supporters and use video of pro-marriage attorneys in future TV ads. The judge is turning this into a public relations circus.

And because Prop. 8 attorneys have chosen to operate alone in court, and are nearly completely focusing on defending marriage licenses for a man and a woman, homosexual activists and their greater number of pro-homosexuality parties in court have the upper hand in making arguments to get their behavior declared a civil right with the enforcement power of the federal government.

If this San Francisco judge overturns Prop. 8, his decision will likely be “stayed” (won’t go into effect) pending the near-guaranteed appeal to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Given those judges’ liberal legacy, their bad decision would absolutely have to be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Given the high court’s current makeup and projecting out one or two years when they could decide the case, I would expect Prop. 8 to ultimately be upheld by two or more votes. The Supreme Court has held, over and over and as late as 2003, that marriage is the sole jurisdiction of states.

Pro-family wins, losses and my perspective

Wednesday, November 4, 2009, 6:47 pm |

I’m very glad that two pro-life, pro-marriage governors have been elected. Here’s where Governor-Elects Bob McDonnell and Chris Christie stand on the issues:

Virginia Governor’s Election Results » Republican Bob McDonnell wins with 59%
> In victory speech, says “I thank God for His grace and His divine providence in my life.”
> Consistently pro-life on abortion, has championed man-woman marriage

New Jersey Governor’s Election Results » Republican Chris Christie wins with 49%
> Against same-sex “marriages,” supports existing pseudo-marriage “civil unions” law
> Favors the right to life for unborn babies

The two pro-family losses for Congress were the special elections in California and New York State where David Harmer and Doug Hoffman fell short.

In California’s low turnout special congressional election, the Republican Party should have poured in some big money (it has a lot) to elect Harmer instead of allowing the very liberal Democrat, John Garamendi, to capture the seat.

But the RNC didn’t have vision, so they didn’t put in much money. Still, pro-life, pro-marriage Harmer  persevered commendably and came within 10 points of Garamendi in the 10th district, where Democrat voter registration is 18 points higher than Republicans.  What is Garamendi’s anti-family agenda that you can expect  him to implement? Read it for yourself.

In upstate New York, the Obama-Pelosi Democrat machine played much harder to elect Democrat Bill Owens to Congress ahead of pro-family conservative Doug Hoffman. You saw the split between conservative and liberal Republicans and the RNC, instead of being conservative and supporting Hoffman, got involved too little too late. Hoffman has issued an “I’ll be back” statement. I bet he could win if he runs again.

As for the marriage license battle in Maine and the marriage-rights shoot-out in Washington State, it’s a great victory to pass Question 1 to “veto” the homosexual-marriage scheme of Main’s Governor and Legislature.

That said, at what cost did the Maine victory come? The “Yes” side actually ran ads promoting homosexual relationships, which principled pro-family leaders Matt Barber and Pete LaBarbera are exposing and decrying.

A marriage battle pro-family citizens didn’t hear much about was R-71 in Washington State. After the Democrat governor and the Democrat-controlled legislature passed a bill awarding all the rights of marriage to homosexual couples, principled pro-family leaders gathered enough signatures to force it to a vote of the people.

Yet national groups contributed too little too late to the Washington state campaign to protect man-woman marriage rights, which is trailing after being outspent four to one.

 An important lesson to learn from the Maine and Washington State contests is that moral values will only win when “might” (our part) is attached to “right” (God’s part). Another important lesson is, when you write marriage amendments, you’ve got to protect marriage rights as well as marriage licenses, because you can’t go back and “fix this” after marriage has been counterfeited.

Read the SaveAmerica.com news release: “Lessons conservatives must learn from marriage battles in Maine and Washington State.”

Keep track of the ongoing vote-by-mail counting in Washington State. The pro-family position is “No on R-71,” and the counting is not done yet finished in this close vote.

Perspective on Arnold signing homosexual indoctrination, ‘marriage’ bills

Monday, October 12, 2009, 1:03 pm |

Despite the hard work and moral cries of pro-family parents, grandparents and other concerned Californians, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has signed SB 572, “Harvey Milk Gay Day” for schoolchildren, into law.

CLICK HERE FOR MILK DOCUMENTATION AND BILL FACTS

This morning, SaveCalifornia.com issued our response to the media (see news release below). Pro-family Californians are appropriately outraged today (see comments on our Facebook). I want to give you perspective and direction.

Thank you for your hard work and prayers to protest “Harvey Milk Gay Day.” Your phone calls, emails, faxes, and petitions were admirable and pulled off four Democrats in the State Assembly. But sadly, Arnold Schwarzenegger has plugged his ears to parents. In the face of opposition, we must always stand strong for our values and do what we can.

California voters are reaping what they have sowed. In 2003 when he was first elected, Schwarzenegger was on record supporting giving all the rights of marriage to homosexuals (later he flipped and now supports homosexual “marriage” licenses too); he supported homosexual couples adopting children; and he had posed nude in a homosexual magazine in his body-building years.

A couple years ago, he hired a homosexual activist, Susan Kennedy, as his chief of staff. Now, by signing SB 572 and SB 54, which recognizes out-of-state homosexual “marriages” in clear violation of Prop. 8, Schwarzenegger supports the ENTIRE homosexual-bisexual-transsexual agenda, just like Jerry Brown and Gavin Newsom do.

What’s worse? A liberal Democrat or a liberal Republican? Since they do the same damage to family values, a liberal Republican is worse. Because a liberal Republican dumbs-down pro-family voters with a unbiblical “lesser of two evils” standard, dumbs down conservative talk-show hosts, and dumbs-down the Republican Party. By infiltrating from within, a liberal Republican can do more damage to “his side” than a liberal Democrat. A liberal Democrat in office will actually unite pro-family citizens in opposition and motivate them for the next election. Look at the national picture. If you’re a pro-family citizen who voted for Schwarzenegger, an anti-family-values liberal Republican, please learn from this.

You may want to express your anger by calling a live staffer in Schwarzenegger’s office at 916-445-2841 or at any of his five regional offices. You should also expose this terrible deed (supported by 68 Democrat lawmakers, 1 Republican named Abel Maldonado, and California’s liberal Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger) by posting comments to online news sites and social networking sites, and by calling talk radio shows.

Here is our Oct. 12, 2009 news release:

SaveCalifornia.com Appalled at Signing of ‘Harvey Milk Gay Day’
SB 572, opposed by overwhelming majority, signed by “People’s Governor”

Sacramento – SaveCalifornia.com, a leading West Coast pro-family, pro-child organization, is appalled that Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has signed SB 572, “Harvey Milk Day,” into law.

“Harvey Milk* was a sexual predator of teens, an advocate of polygamous relationships, a public liar, and is in no way a good role model for impressionable schoolchildren,” said Randy Thomasson, president of SaveCalifornia.com. “Sadly, children in public schools will now have even more in-your-face, homosexual-bisexual-transsexual indoctrination. This provides the strongest impetus yet for loving parents to remove their children from anti-family public schools.”

“’Harvey Milk Day’ teaches children as young as five years old to admire the life and values of the notorious homosexual activist Harvey Milk” said Thomasson. “The ‘suitable commemorative exercises’ that are part of ‘Harvey Milk Day’ can easily result in cross-dressing exercises, ‘LGBT pride’ parades and mock gay weddings on school campuses — everything Harvey Milk supported.”

Schwarzenegger vetoed ‘Harvey Milk Day” last year, he signed it this year. The Governor also previously claimed to oppose same-sex “marriage,” but now supports destroying the definition of marriage as only between a man and a woman, in court, and by his signing of SB 54, to recognize out-of-state homosexual “marriages” in violation of Prop. 8.

For several months, SaveCalifornia.com has been leading parents and grandparents to call, email, fax, and petition Governor Schwarzenegger to veto “Harvey Milk Day.” The clear majority of correspondence to the Governor was opposed to SB 572. As a whole, Californians are 4 to 1 against the notion of statewide day of significance honoring the San Francisco gay activist.

For documentation of Harvey Milk’s values and further analysis of “Harvey Milk Day,” see SaveCalifornia.com’s SB 572 veto request letter.

* Randy Shilts, The Mayor of Castro Street: The Life and Times of Harvey Milk (1982)