Supremes Uphold Prop 8

SAN FRANCISCO – The California Supreme Court has upheld a voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage, but it also decided that the estimated 18,000 gay couples who tied the knot before the law took effect will stay wed.

More here.

Cal Supremes Hear Prop 8

This morning I watched the oral arguments in the Prop 8 cases. Simply said, Prop 8's challengers got smashed.

Justice Kennard was particularly forceful with her questions and she never let up. The challengers had a difficult time providing her with logical answers.

Prop 8's challengers had everything going against them, including the law. The California attorney general's office did particularly poorly. Kenneth Starr, on the other hand, was certainly the best advocate of the day. No one could keep up with him. His answers were brief and to the point and supported by the law.

It was also refreshing to see that the Court was actually interested in applying the law to the facts. After watching the arguments I'm confident Prop 8 will be upheld. The No Crowd, I'm sure, will continue the fight.

The California Supreme Court, which last year declared the right of gays and lesbians to marry, appeared ready Thursday to uphold the voters' decision to overrule the court and restore the state's ban on same-sex marriage.

More here.

Cal Legislature Passes Resolutions Against Prop 8

It's amazing how fast they can work to pass meaningless resolutions that encourage the breakdown of the family. They'll have their reward.

SACRAMENTO—Both houses of the state Legislature passed resolutions Monday endorsing the legal effort to overturn California's same-sex marriage ban, just days before the issue goes to the state Supreme Court.

The resolutions passed along party lines, 18-14 in the Senate and 45-27 in the Assembly, with several members absent in both chambers.

More here.

SR 7 Passes the Judicial Committee

Another useless resolution on which the California Legislature will be wasting our tax dollars deciding.

SAN FRANCISCO – The Senate Judiciary Committee passed Senate Resolution 7 (Leno) today, which would put the legislature on record as opposing Prop. 8 as an illegal revision to the California Constitution. Sponsored by Equality California and introduced by Sen. Mark Leno (D-San Francisco), the resolution calls for the invalidation of Prop. 8, which not only stripped same-sex couples of a equal protections after a slim majority vote but also usurped the legislature's role in approving fundamental revisions to the state constitution. The measure passed in a 3 to 2 vote.

More here.

Be Careful What You Say - The Gay Thought Police Will Get You

This just gets better and better. A Utah representative says that gays are a threat to America and he loses his chairmanship. The world is truly upside down.

SALT LAKE CITY—A Utah state senator was kicked off a judicial committee he chaired on Friday after comparing gay activists to radical Muslims.

Sen. Chris Buttars, R-West Jordan, also told former local television reporter Reed Cowan, an openly gay documentary producer who now lives in Florida, that gay activists are "probably the greatest threat to America going down."

More here.

Equality Summit 2009

Equality California recently held its Equality Summit 09. There are four videos of the summit, the first of which I post below. The LGBT community's appeal to Providence, as shown in this first video, is...well...confusing.

Prop 8 Amicus Briefs

By my count, there were approximately 41 amicus briefs filed in support of overturning Proposition 8 and 15 amicus brief filed in support of upholding Proposition 8.

It's amazing how much more support bad policy gets in the courts than in the ballot box.

Prop 8 Foes Getting More Organized

Anti-Family forces are combining and organizing and will continue the fight until they get what they want. Let's make sure that we fight just as hard the whole time.

The "marriage equality" training talked about in the article will become part of every Californian's life when SSM finally comes to California. We will all be required to take sensitivity training in the workplace, schools, etc., so that we can better "understand" SSM.

Determined to avoid the mistakes of their last, losing campaign for gay marriage, gay rights activists are launching the first of what they hope will be many “marriage equality training camps” in Los Angeles this weekend.

The idea is to train activists in “the practical, hands-on skills to organize in their communities to restore marriage equality for same-sex couples to California.”

More here.

Google Fails to Practice What It Preaches

I thought Google's motto was "Don't Be Evil"?

Google has filed an amicus brief in several legal challenges to Proposition 8, which make gay marriage illegal in California.

The company argues that it has many gay, lesbian and bi-sexual employees and many come to work for the company because they can get married in California. If those marriages are annulled then the company says it would lose key talent and be placed at a competitive disadvantage.

“In the wake of the election many were concerned with the impact Proposition 8 could have on the personal lives of people they work with every day, and on California's ability to attract and retain a diverse mix of employees from around the world,” said the company on its blog.

More here.

Good is Evil and Evil is Good

Is it 1984? It must be since Newspeak has officially replaced the English language. Words like "morality," "tolerance," "good," and "evil" mean exactly the opposite of their definitions. So it is with this unbiased (sarcasm) report released by the American Psychological Association which details the negative effects that Proposition 8 has had on society as a whole. As reported by the anti-family Edge:

"In its Introduction, the report noted that, according to the APA’s three studies, released earlier this month, residents of states where voters have approved anti-gay ballot initiatives have suffered elevated stress as 'a direct result of the negative images and messaged associated with the ballot campaign and the passage of the amendment.'

"Study respondents also disclosed that they were /alienated from their community, fearful they would lose their children, and concerned they would become victims of anti-gay violence."

Where is the study from the APA detailing the effect of the actual (as opposed to the No Crowd's speculative "fears") violence and alienation from the community that those who supported Proposition 8 have experienced? Where's the report detailing the effect of the No Crowd's intolerance for religion?

The propaganda never stops, but luckily many of us can see right through it. I'm sure this is only the first of many reports which will be released to convince everybody of the benefits that gay "families" will have on society.

Add Pepsi to the Corporate Sponsors of the Destruction of Moral Society

For some reason multi-national corporations are drawn toward assisting in bringing about the demise of the principles on which the West was built. Add to that list Pepsi. I wonder if they will next add an ingredient to their soda that makes people more "tolerant" of homosexuality.

Read about it here.

Suit to Stop Harassment of Yes on 8 Supporters

The No Crowd will probably argue that this violates their "right" to persecute and harass people who think differently than they. I mean why not? As long as they're inventing rights...

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — Alliance Defense Fund allied attorneys together with ADF attorneys filed a lawsuit Wednesday on behalf of ProtectMarriage.com and the National Organization for Marriage California to prevent harassment of citizens who gave as little as $100 to support Proposition 8. The lawsuit documents incidents of harassment and retaliation by opponents who have targeted Proposition 8 supporters after their identities and employers were made public by the state as required by California campaign finance law.

“Putting the names and employers of the people who supported Proposition 8 on the Internet for anyone to see has caused serious problems. No one should worry about getting a death threat because of the way he or she votes,” said James Bopp, Jr., lead attorney for the supporters of Proposition 8. “This lawsuit will protect the right of all people to help support causes they agree with, without having to worry about harassment or threats.”

In November, over 7 million Californians approved Proposition 8. Under a California law, people who gave money to support Proposition 8 had their names, employers, and other personal information listed on the Web site of the Secretary of State of California.

After Proposition 8 passed, people who did not support Proposition 8 used the list of names to go after people who supported Proposition 8. Some people who supported Proposition 8 had their homes and churches vandalized, were forced to resign their jobs, and were even threatened with violence and death. To stop this harassment and these threats, this lawsuit asks the court to stop the release of the names and personal information of people who gave money to support Proposition 8.

“Our laws should ensure free participation in the democratic process, and not result in compromising the free speech and association rights of guaranteed to all Americans,” said ADF Legal Counsel Tim Chandler, who is serving as local counsel in the case. “Citizens shouldn’t have to choose between being involved in the democratic process and subjecting themselves to acts of vengeance.”

The lawsuit challenges parts of California’s campaign finance laws that require people who donate as little as $100 to have personal information revealed on the Internet as unconstitutional violations of free speech. The lawsuit also challenges parts of the campaign finance laws that require reporting of donations after a proposition has been voted on as unconstitutional.

Yes on Proposition 8 Campaign Files Response to Jerry Brown

Yesterday, the official campaign for Proposition 8 filed its response to the California Attorney General's theory that even though Proposition 8 is a valid constitutional amendment enacted by a majority of Californians it is nonetheless invalid because it violates inalienable rights.

The Prop 8 Campaign responded that the highest authority in determining what will be part of the California Constitution is the people, and the judiciary must so defer. Read it here.

Excellent Reply to Newsweek's Anti-Chrisitian Article

Newsweek earlier ran this article which attempts to use the Bible as an advocate for gay marriage. Ridiculous, I know. A praiseworthy response follows:

In the latest issue of Newsweek, editor Jon Meacham explains: "To argue that something is so because it is in the Bible is more than intellectually bankrupt--it is unserious, and unworthy of the great Judeo-Christian tradition." Indeed, he continues, "this conservative resort to biblical authority is the worst kind of fundamentalism." Curiously, he intends this as a defense of Lisa Miller's cover story, which announces that we should approve homosexual marriage because the Bible tells that Jesus would want us to....

Miller demolishes the distinction between sin and sinner, thus eradicating any real conception of sin and guilt. But without sin and guilt there is no need for forgiveness--and no basis for morality. An amoral world may be a quite suitable environment for gay marriage, but it is hardly the kind of world in which most Americans want to bring up their children.

More here.

In N.J. Gay "Rights" Trump Property Rights

There are a lot of things wrong with the N.J. administrative court's decision. First, the gay couple asserts a right to be married on private property. No one has any right to use another's private property even if there is a general invitation to the public to rent the premises. Property owners have an absolute right to rent the property to whomever they wish. In our big-government age, however, property rights have nearly disappeared. Just look at Americans' acceptance of taking from Peter to give to Paul for nearly everything you can think of.

Second, the owner of the property is a religious organization and gay marriage is violative of that organization's beliefs, so the gay couple asserts a right to force a religion to act contrary to its beliefs. Sickening.

As a result the organization closed its doors to anyone so now even those the organization wants to rent its property for marriages and other events cannot do so.

Wake up America - the LGBT "community" cares nothing for real God-given natural rights. This case is representative of that. They are intent on destroying all natural rights and supplanting those with their own list of invented "rights."

MOUNT LAUREL, N.J. - A lesbian couple that was barred from holding a civil union ceremony at a beachfront pavilion owned by a church group has won a legal victory.

The New Jersey Division on Civil Rights said in a ruling Monday that its investigation found that the refusal of the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association, a Methodist organization that owns a square-mile of beachfront property near Asbury Park, to rent the oceanfront spot to the couple for a civil union ceremony in March 2007 violated the public accommodation provisions of the state's Law Against Discrimination.

More here.

AG's Brief May Aid Prop 8 Proponents

California Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown's decision to throw the weight of his office behind same-sex marriage has sparked debate over whether his arguments will actually do more harm than good for those hoping to overturn the initiative.

Brown's request that the California Supreme Court overturn the state's ban on same-sex marriage -- arguing that it undermines fundamental liberties -- has been widely hailed as a victory in the fight for gay rights.

But far less attention has been paid to Brown's long written rejection of some of the principal legal theories put forth by same-sex marriage advocates in their bid to roll back Proposition 8. Indeed, a large chunk of Brown's 111-page legal filing was devoted to shooting down a more technical legal argument used by supporters of same-sex marriage.

More here.

Attorney General's Brief

If you are interested in reading the California Attorney General's brief submitted with the Cal. Supreme Court on December 19, 2008, click here.

All the More Reason to Hate Phoney and Fraudie

As mortgage giants Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae hurtled to financial ruin, their charitable foundations continued to pour big money into homosexual causes.

Their largest single gifts came in the last year — just months before both companies collapsed and were taken over by the government.

Freddie Mac gave more than $20,000 to the 2008 fundraising gala of the Washington, D.C., chapter of Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG-DC). Fannie Mae gave between $10,000 - $19,000 to the same event.

More here.

Part 3 - The California Supreme Court’s Delicate Position with Respect to the Challenge to the Anti-Same-Sex Marriage Proposition 8, and the Hurdle fo

As Alan Brownstein and I wrote in the last column in this series, the California Supreme Court finds itself in a delicate institutional position as it takes up the validity of California's voter-passed ban on gay marriage, Proposition 8. One side argues that Proposition 8 is a valid "amendment" to the state constitution that permissibly overturned the court's ruling last May recognizing gay marriage. The other side contends that Proposition 8 is, instead, a procedurally-flawed attempt to "revise" the state constitution. In deciding which view is correct, the court will essentially be superintending one of the key processes that were designed to check and balance the power of the court itself. For this reason, the court will have to be somewhat circumspect as it tries to give meaning to the amendment/revision dichotomy in this context. In this column, I will offer a few observations on the court's delicate task.

More here.

Part 2 -Was Proposition 8 a Valid Amendment, or an Invalid Revision, to the California Constitution? And Should the Court - Or Governor Schwarzenegger

During the running legal battle over gay marriage in California, Governor Schwarzenegger, when asked of his official stance in the dispute, has said numerous times: "Let the court decide. Let the people decide." Well, the court did decide, last May. And then the people did decide, last month. And now, apparently, the court is going to decide again.

More here.