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
Could Newsom have cleaned up homeless encampments? And will
he?
When the U.S. Supreme Court ruled June 28 that banning homeless encampments is NOT cruel and unusual punishment, some Democrat Party big-city mayors – who’ve coddled transients for years – have finally said, “OK, the homeless encampments have got to go!”
One of them is San Francisco’s Democrat Party Mayor London Breed, who, on July 18, announced her “very aggressive” sweep of San Francisco homeless encampments will begin in August.
But will they? Earlier this year in Florida, Ron DeSantis and his Republican state legislature prohibited local governments from permitting camping or sleeping on public property.
The State of Florida will oversee local governments that set up new homeless encampments where transients can camp “up to a year.”
This is how to do it: Ban encampments on public property (streets, sidewalks, parks, etc.) and provide temporary group shelters where no alcohol or illegal drugs are permitted, but counseling and drug abuse treatment are required. (Yet Bible-based counseling and salvation would be the ultimate healer.)
Will Big Democrat Gavin Newsom do what Florida’s done, by calling a special legislative session or invoking his “emergency powers” he’s so fond of?
Nope — which is why banning homeless encampments statewide just won’t happen. We’ll have to see which cities actually do it. Because the Democrat Party mayor of Los Angeles won’t, and the Democrat Party mayor of Sacramento probably won’t either.
All Newsom did on July 25 was “order” his administration to clean away homeless encampments on state-owned property (state buildings, state freeways and highways, forests and wilderness areas, along waterways, etc.), which is just a drop in the bucket.
And this isn’t just my opinion. Liberal UCLA professor Chris Herring, who the Big Media likes quoting, said, “Newsom could have issued this order before the (Supreme Court) decision. The only difference now is that states and localities are free to confine and arrest people even when there is no shelter available.”
Bottom line, you can expect most Democrat Party politicians to continue allowing homeless encampments, because it fits their philosophy that people aren’t responsible for their behavior, and advances their New Communist agenda to burden the middle class.
For even when we were with you, we commanded you this: If anyone will not work, neither shall he eat. For we hear that there are some who walk among you in a disorderly manner, not working at all, but are busybodies. Now those who are such we command and exhort through our Lord Jesus Christ that they work in quietness and eat their own bread. The Bible, 2 Thessalonians 3:10-12
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.
RSS 2.0 Feed