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
Monday, September 2, 2024, 10:55 am | Randy Thomasson
Have you considered why California has such bad government? There are powerful forces supporting the New Communist Democrats, who are now three-fourths of both houses of the State Legislature, and who control all the statewide constitutional offices.
Yet the evil forces leading here aren’t the “useful idiots” (foolish voters dumbed down by the “public” schools, illegal aliens, self-centered government employees, etc.).
No, the wealthy, influential entities sustaining the iron-fisted rule of New Communist Democrats in California are both government unions and private unions. Don’t believe it? See how unions fund the Democrat Party Machine:
SEIU, California’s largest private- and public-sector union, nearly exclusively supports Democrat Party candidates and liberal causes. SEIU has also been the top union contributing to federal campaigns, donating $232,694,670 between 1990 and 2016, 99 percent of which went to Democrats.
As reported in late 2023: “Democrats and their causes receive 95.7% of the cash from unions’ political action committees. In 2021-22 the Big Four gave more than $29 million to the SEIU’s United We Can super PAC and the NEA Advocacy Fund super PAC which support federal candidates for office. Another $16 million went to wealthy climate crusader Tom Steyer’s leftwing For Our Future Pac. Some $3 million went to Fair Share Massachusetts which supports a state wealth tax.
“Big money also flows at the state level, where public unions all but run many state capitals. In 2021-2022, the four largest government unions spent $27.9 million in Illinois, $24.9 million in California, $13.2 million in Minnesota and $12.1 million in Pennsylvania.
“Nearly 60% of unions’ annual political spending, or some $400 million, came from membership dues and about 40% came from unions’ political action committees for which workers make voluntary contributions for politics. While unions can’t send dues money directly to candidates, workers might be surprised to see their paycheck deductions funneled to outside groups that spend money on politics (including those that deploy the money out of state).”
As reported in 2021 after Gavin Newsom “won” his recall election, “Organized labor donated at least $25.7 million — or more than one-third of the total the governor raised to keep his job. Unions, of course, have deep ties to the Democratic Party and a stake in nearly every aspect of state government.”
Because of how unions and their “owned politicians” put deceptive tax hikes on the ballot, and since union bosses regularly spend union dues to elect and re-elect corrupt Democrat Party politicians, if you’re a union member, please resign from your union.
Remember, you have strong, fundamental free-speech rights to not be coerced into supporting objectionable union politics. Now that you’ve unpeeled the onion and found the rotten core, will you stop “feeding” the beast?
See how to resign from the union and still keep your job and benefits:
The biblical view of man is work-oriented. It affirms that man was placed on the earth to subdue it to the glory of God (Gen. 1:28; 9:1-7). It is not each man’s right to work. It is his duty to work. What is his lawful right is his right to compete for the job he wants, his right to compete for the labor services he wishes to purchase. No one has a right to my job, including me. Anyone should have the right to compete for my job, including me. And I have the right to compete for his. “A Christian view of labor unions,” Gary North, July 1, 1978
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
RSS 2.0 Feed