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.
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
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.”
NOProp. 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.
NOProp. 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.
NOProp. 32 increasing the state minimum wage to $18/hr. for all California employees (killing even more jobs and businesses).
NOProp. 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.”
NOProp. 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.
RSS 2.0 Feed