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.
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
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.
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.
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
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.
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.
Monday, December 22, 2008
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.
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.
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.
More here.
Sunday, December 21, 2008
Jerry Brown Acting Like Every Other Politician - Working Against the People
Saying Proposition 8 violates constitutionally protected liberties, Attorney General Jerry Brown on Friday asked the California Supreme Court to strike down the same-sex marriage ban, even as supporters filed a brief that would erase the legal recognition of couples married before Election Day.
In a brief filed with the high court, the state top's lawyer argues for the first time that Proposition 8 should be invalidated, saying it is "inconsistent with the guarantees of individual liberty safeguarded" by the California Constitution. Brown had not taken a position on the measure until now.
"There are certain rights that are not to be subject to popular votes, otherwise they are not fundamental rights," Brown said in an interview. "If every fundamental liberty can be stripped away by a majority vote, then it's not a fundamental liberty."
More here.
Prop. 8 sponsors seek to nullify 18K gay marriages
Makes sense. If only marriage between one man and one woman is recognized and valid in California it wouldn't make a whole lot of sense to have these 18k fiat "marriages" remain valid.
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — The sponsors of Proposition 8 asked the California Supreme Court on Friday to nullify the marriages of the estimated 18,000 same-sex couples who exchanged vows before voters approved the ballot initiative that outlawed gay unions.
The Yes on 8 campaign filed a brief arguing that because the new law holds that only marriages between a man and a woman are recognized or valid in California, the state can no longer recognize the existing same-sex unions. The document reveals for the first time that opponents of same-sex marriage will fight in court to undo those unions that already exist.
More here.
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
The Long Count
On the whole, there shouldn’t have been a surer thing than the defeat of Proposition 8 in the California elections last month.
The activists pressing for the approval of same-sex “marriage” had all the heavyweights on their side of the issue: major corporations, big money, the media, the Hollywood elites, the California Teachers’ Association and the university big-wigs, the governor and the attorney general, and a fair portion of the legislature. Even the state’s high court climbed into the ring, ignoring past election results to legalize same-sex ceremonies in a controversial decision last spring.
Going into November, activists promoting the same-sex agenda were giving defenders of marriage a public pounding that even boxing legend Jack Dempsey might have found impressive.
And yet …the activists lost. What’s more, they’re still losing—giving up round after round in the crucial post-election bout for public sympathy. And curiously, they’re losing for the same reason the powerful Dempsey lost his heavyweight title fight in 1927.
More here.
Official Vote Count Prop 8
The official Statement of the Vote has been released by the Secretary of State. Proposition 8 passed by a margin of 52.3% to 47.7%. We won by a margin of 600,000 votes: 7,001,084 to 6,401,483. To provide some context for this vote:
- Prop. 8 received 2,150,000 MORE votes than did Arnold Schwarzenegger when he was reelected in 2006
- Prop. 8 received nearly 2 million MORE votes than Dianne Feinstein did when she was reelected to the US Senate in 2006
- Prop. 8 received 250,000 MORE votes than did John Kerry when he carried California in 2004
- Prop. 8 received 45,000 MORE votes than did Barbara Boxer in her landslide reelection to the U.S. Senate in 2004
- Prop. 8 passed with approximately the same percentage of the vote that Barack Obama received nationally
You can review the county-by-county results of Proposition 8 by going to the California Secretary of State’s Web page. Click here.
Friday, December 12, 2008
Day Without a Gay Protest Fizzles
Why wasn't it successful? Probably because it made no sense.
Activists had billed Wednesday as "a day without a gay," when gays and lesbians across the country would call in sick, boycott shopping and show the impact of their absence from everyday life.
Designed to be a protest against the Nov. 4 passage of Proposition 8, which bans same-sex marriage, the day's events drew only scattered support in the Bay Area, the heart of the gay rights movement, and also criticism.
More here.
Activists had billed Wednesday as "a day without a gay," when gays and lesbians across the country would call in sick, boycott shopping and show the impact of their absence from everyday life.
Designed to be a protest against the Nov. 4 passage of Proposition 8, which bans same-sex marriage, the day's events drew only scattered support in the Bay Area, the heart of the gay rights movement, and also criticism.
More here.
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Call in Gay
I'm sorry but this is just getting ridiculous. Homosexuality is a behavior. Maybe adulterers should "Call-in-Adulter" tomorrow and perhaps liars should "Call-in-Liar" the next day, then gamblers should "Call-in-Gamler" after that. I think one of the biggest successes of the LGBT crowd is that they veered America away from looking at homosexuality as a behavior. When homosexuality is looked at in that light, the LGBT crowd's arguments become even more inane.
Also, what is the point of this protest? Are they trying to argue that homosexuality is necessary for the well-being of the economy, as though the economy would collapse without gay workers? Their logic (or lack thereof) is truly baffling.
Some same-sex marriage supporters were urging people to "call in gay" Wednesday to show how much the country relies on gays and lesbians, but others questioned whether it's wise to encourage skipping work during the nation's economic distress.
Organizers of "Day Without a Gay" - scheduled to coincide with International Human Rights Day and modeled after similar work stoppages by Hispanic immigrants - also are encouraging people to perform volunteer work and refrain from spending money.
More here.
Also, what is the point of this protest? Are they trying to argue that homosexuality is necessary for the well-being of the economy, as though the economy would collapse without gay workers? Their logic (or lack thereof) is truly baffling.
Some same-sex marriage supporters were urging people to "call in gay" Wednesday to show how much the country relies on gays and lesbians, but others questioned whether it's wise to encourage skipping work during the nation's economic distress.
Organizers of "Day Without a Gay" - scheduled to coincide with International Human Rights Day and modeled after similar work stoppages by Hispanic immigrants - also are encouraging people to perform volunteer work and refrain from spending money.
More here.
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
Response to Newsweek's Anti-Family Article
What do you know -- another mainstream media outlet has attacked the family. Albert Mohler responds:
Newsweek magazine, one of the most influential news magazines in America, has decided to come out for same-sex marriage in a big way, and to do so by means of a biblical and theological argument. In its cover story for this week, "The Religious Case for Gay Marriage," Newsweek religion editor Lisa Miller offers a revisionist argument for the acceptance of same-sex marriage. It is fair to say that Newsweek has gone for broke on this question.
Miller begins with a lengthy dismissal of the Bible's relevance to the question of marriage in the first place. "Let's try for a minute to take the religious conservatives at their word and define marriage as the Bible does," Miller suggests. If so, she argues that readers will find a confusion of polygamy, strange marital practices, and worse.
More here.
Newsweek magazine, one of the most influential news magazines in America, has decided to come out for same-sex marriage in a big way, and to do so by means of a biblical and theological argument. In its cover story for this week, "The Religious Case for Gay Marriage," Newsweek religion editor Lisa Miller offers a revisionist argument for the acceptance of same-sex marriage. It is fair to say that Newsweek has gone for broke on this question.
Miller begins with a lengthy dismissal of the Bible's relevance to the question of marriage in the first place. "Let's try for a minute to take the religious conservatives at their word and define marriage as the Bible does," Miller suggests. If so, she argues that readers will find a confusion of polygamy, strange marital practices, and worse.
More here.
Sunday, December 7, 2008
Full Page Ad in NY Times Decrying Bigotry Against Mormons
It is really great to see other religions uniting against the hate directed toward the Mormons for their support of Proposition 8.
Declaring "no mob veto," a full-page ad in the New York Times on Friday denounced the "violence and intimidation" directed at members of the LDS Church who supported California's ban on gay marriage.
"When thugs ... terrorize any place of worship, especially those of a religious minority, responsible voices need to speak clearly: Religious wars are wrong; they are also dangerous," reads the advertisement paid for by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, based in Washington, D.C.
See the ad here.
Declaring "no mob veto," a full-page ad in the New York Times on Friday denounced the "violence and intimidation" directed at members of the LDS Church who supported California's ban on gay marriage.
"When thugs ... terrorize any place of worship, especially those of a religious minority, responsible voices need to speak clearly: Religious wars are wrong; they are also dangerous," reads the advertisement paid for by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, based in Washington, D.C.
See the ad here.
Read the article here.
Thursday, December 4, 2008
The Aftermath of Prop 8 - Gay Hate
Good Op-Ed piece on gay hate toward Mormons.
Did you catch the political ad in which two Jews ring the doorbell of a nice, working-class family? They barge in and rifle through the wife's purse and then the man's wallet for any cash. Cackling, they smash the daughter's piggy bank and pinch every penny. "We need it for the Wall Street bailout!" they exclaim.
No? Maybe you saw the one with the two swarthy Muslims who knock on the door of a nice Jewish family and then blow themselves up?
No? Well, then surely you saw the TV ad in which two smarmy Mormon missionaries knock on the door of an attractive lesbian couple. "Hi, we're from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints!" says the blond one with a toothy smile. "We're here to take away your rights." The Mormon zealots yank the couple's wedding rings from their fingers and then tear up their marriage license.
More here.
The hate continues. Now there is a website dedicated to hating Mormons for their involvement in getting Prop 8 passed. No Crowd -- you are so transparent.
Did you catch the political ad in which two Jews ring the doorbell of a nice, working-class family? They barge in and rifle through the wife's purse and then the man's wallet for any cash. Cackling, they smash the daughter's piggy bank and pinch every penny. "We need it for the Wall Street bailout!" they exclaim.
No? Maybe you saw the one with the two swarthy Muslims who knock on the door of a nice Jewish family and then blow themselves up?
No? Well, then surely you saw the TV ad in which two smarmy Mormon missionaries knock on the door of an attractive lesbian couple. "Hi, we're from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints!" says the blond one with a toothy smile. "We're here to take away your rights." The Mormon zealots yank the couple's wedding rings from their fingers and then tear up their marriage license.
More here.
The hate continues. Now there is a website dedicated to hating Mormons for their involvement in getting Prop 8 passed. No Crowd -- you are so transparent.
S.F. archbishop defends role in Prop. 8 passage
San Francisco Catholic Archbishop George Niederauer, in his first extensive explanation about his role in the passage of Proposition 8, on Wednesday defended the church's actions in the successful ballot initiative.
"Religious leaders in America have the constitutional right to speak out on issues of public policy," Niederauer wrote in a statement posted on the archdiocese's Web site. "Catholic bishops, specifically, also have a responsibility to teach the faith, and our beliefs about marriage and family are part of this faith."
More here.
"Religious leaders in America have the constitutional right to speak out on issues of public policy," Niederauer wrote in a statement posted on the archdiocese's Web site. "Catholic bishops, specifically, also have a responsibility to teach the faith, and our beliefs about marriage and family are part of this faith."
More here.
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
Hollywood's Latest Assault on Morality: Prop 8 the Musical
It's really a shame, frankly, because I love Jack Black...in a plutonic sort of way. Yet, this video further demonstrates how Hollywood views morality and religion. As much as I disagree with its message, I must say it is entertaining and funny.
Let It Go
Here's what I don't get about California and the recent Proposition 8 vote: Why all the commotion over yet another passage of yet another marriage amendment?
This was the 30th time a state has placed either a constitutional amendment proposal or its equivalent on its ballot, and the 30th time the amendment has passed.
Thirty straight wins is formidable. It's downright Globetrotter-esque. The New England Patriots didn't even go 30-0.
In twenty-nine of those statewide votes, nobody threw a tantrum.
More here.
This was the 30th time a state has placed either a constitutional amendment proposal or its equivalent on its ballot, and the 30th time the amendment has passed.
Thirty straight wins is formidable. It's downright Globetrotter-esque. The New England Patriots didn't even go 30-0.
In twenty-nine of those statewide votes, nobody threw a tantrum.
More here.
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
Senate Resolution Opposes Prop. 8
Thank you Senator Leno et al for spending even more taxpayer money by wasting time on this resolution that has no legal affect whatsoever. Is it any wonder California can't balance a budget? Legislators don't even know what their job duties entail.
Senator Mark Leno introduced a resolution Tuesday that would put the state Legislature on the record as opposing Proposition 8, the gay marriage ban that was approved by voters on the November ballot.
Senate Resolution 7 was co-authored by Leno (D-San Francisco), Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento) and the LGBT Legislative Caucus, and was sponsored by Equality California, a group dedicated to ensuring civil rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered individuals.
More here.
The Yes on 8 Campaign responded.
Senator Mark Leno introduced a resolution Tuesday that would put the state Legislature on the record as opposing Proposition 8, the gay marriage ban that was approved by voters on the November ballot.
Senate Resolution 7 was co-authored by Leno (D-San Francisco), Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento) and the LGBT Legislative Caucus, and was sponsored by Equality California, a group dedicated to ensuring civil rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered individuals.
More here.
The Yes on 8 Campaign responded.
SACRAMENTO, Calif., Dec 02, 2008 /PRNewswire-USNewswire via COMTEX/ -- Leaders of the ProtectMarriage.com - Yes on Proposition 8 campaign today accused legislators of "grandstanding for the cameras" in an inappropriate and misguided publicity stunt designed to influence the California Supreme Court in the lead-up to the Court's scheduled hearing on the validity of Proposition 8.
"You'd think that these legislators would be focused on resolving the budget deficit or improving the economy. Instead, they seem more interested in grandstanding for the cameras and thumbing their noses at voters who enacted Proposition 8 by a nearly 600,000 vote margin," said Ron Prentice, Chairman of ProtectMarriage.com - Yes on 8. "Sadly, with an approval rating hovering at an all-time low of 15%, the Legislature continues to disregard their duties to the citizens of California."
More here.
"You'd think that these legislators would be focused on resolving the budget deficit or improving the economy. Instead, they seem more interested in grandstanding for the cameras and thumbing their noses at voters who enacted Proposition 8 by a nearly 600,000 vote margin," said Ron Prentice, Chairman of ProtectMarriage.com - Yes on 8. "Sadly, with an approval rating hovering at an all-time low of 15%, the Legislature continues to disregard their duties to the citizens of California."
More here.
No Crowd Protests Cinemark
Isn't it interesting that the CEO of Cinemark donated his own money in support of Proposition 8 while those in charge of Google, PG&E, Apple, AT&T, etc. used their companies as a front for their own political agenda. Isn't it also interesting that the Yes Crowd has not started boycotting and picketting Google et al but the No Crowd is protesting Cinemark even though Cinemark did not make a contribution to the Yes campaign. Just more of the same from the No Crowd.
BOULDER — Anthony Hernandez started boycotting Cinemark movie theaters in 2006, when a manager asked him and an ex-boyfriend to leave a movie because other patrons didn’t like that the couple was holding hands.
So it was an easy decision to join about 50 other gay rights advocates this afternoon outside Century Boulder Theatre to protest the nearly $10,000 donation that Cinemark-Century owner Alan Stock made in support of the recently passed California proposition that prohibits same-sex marriage.
More here.
BOULDER — Anthony Hernandez started boycotting Cinemark movie theaters in 2006, when a manager asked him and an ex-boyfriend to leave a movie because other patrons didn’t like that the couple was holding hands.
So it was an easy decision to join about 50 other gay rights advocates this afternoon outside Century Boulder Theatre to protest the nearly $10,000 donation that Cinemark-Century owner Alan Stock made in support of the recently passed California proposition that prohibits same-sex marriage.
More here.
Monday, December 1, 2008
The New York Times Editorial Board Endorses Investigation of Mormon Church re Prop 8 Involvement
The Pinkos over at the NYT continue their assault on religion (and anything else that is good).
Read it here.
Read it here.
Thursday, November 27, 2008
The Preposterous Premise for Gay Marriage
After the passage of Prop 8 in California, homosexuals are still howling that they don’t have “equal rights.” Hopefully, the California Supreme Court will respect the equal rights of voters by affirming Prop 8 because the howls of homosexuals are false. The truth is every person in America already has equal marriage rights!
We’re all playing by the same rules—we all have the same right to marry any non-related adult of the opposite sex. Those rules do not deny anyone “equal protection of the laws” because the qualifications to enter a marriage apply equally to everyone—every adult person has the same right to marry.
Homosexuals want the court to believe that because of their sexual desires they are a special class of persons that is being discriminated against. In other words, they think that sexual desires guarantee people special legal rights.
More here.
We’re all playing by the same rules—we all have the same right to marry any non-related adult of the opposite sex. Those rules do not deny anyone “equal protection of the laws” because the qualifications to enter a marriage apply equally to everyone—every adult person has the same right to marry.
Homosexuals want the court to believe that because of their sexual desires they are a special class of persons that is being discriminated against. In other words, they think that sexual desires guarantee people special legal rights.
More here.
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
The No Crowd's Second Victim
The L.A. Times reports:
Richard Raddon, the director of the Los Angeles Film Festival who has been at the center of controversy ever since it was revealed almost two weeks ago that he had contributed $1,500 to the campaign to ban gay marriage in California, resigned from his post over the weekend.
The nonprofit arts organization Film Independent sponsors both the Los Angeles Film Festival, held in May, and the popular Independent Spirit awards. Raddon is a member of the Mormon Church, which actively called on its congregants to work for the passage of Proposition 8, the constitutional amendment defining marriage as only between a man and a woman. It has been estimated that Mormons gave more than $20 million in support of the recently passed ballot measure.
After Raddon's contribution was made public online, Film Independent was swamped with criticism from "No on 8" supporters both inside and outside the organization. Within days, Raddon offered to step down as festival director, but the board, which includes Don Cheadle, Forest Whitaker, Lionsgate President Tom Ortenberg and Fox Searchlight President Peter Rice, gave him a unanimous vote of confidence.
Richard Raddon, the director of the Los Angeles Film Festival who has been at the center of controversy ever since it was revealed almost two weeks ago that he had contributed $1,500 to the campaign to ban gay marriage in California, resigned from his post over the weekend.
The nonprofit arts organization Film Independent sponsors both the Los Angeles Film Festival, held in May, and the popular Independent Spirit awards. Raddon is a member of the Mormon Church, which actively called on its congregants to work for the passage of Proposition 8, the constitutional amendment defining marriage as only between a man and a woman. It has been estimated that Mormons gave more than $20 million in support of the recently passed ballot measure.
After Raddon's contribution was made public online, Film Independent was swamped with criticism from "No on 8" supporters both inside and outside the organization. Within days, Raddon offered to step down as festival director, but the board, which includes Don Cheadle, Forest Whitaker, Lionsgate President Tom Ortenberg and Fox Searchlight President Peter Rice, gave him a unanimous vote of confidence.
The Culture War, Democratic Government, and the Courts
If it walks like a culture war, squawks like a culture war, and has all the ugliness of a culture war, surely it is a culture war -- right?
Maybe not. It's true that we've seen some wild things in the days since California voters approved Proposition 8 -- a measure on the state ballot prohibiting same-sex marriage. We've had the burning of the Book of Mormon. The mailing of envelopes filled with white powder to Mormon temples. And activists marching on Mormon churches with signs and shouts of "hate" and "bigot" directed at anyone who might have a difference of opinion.
In modern America, of course, these acts all come under the banner of "tolerance." And it's interesting that all those so outraged by the alleged disrespect toward the Quran shown by Guantanamo prison guards (the most sensational report was later retracted by Newsweek) appear unperturbed by the ugliness directed against our Mormon brothers and sisters. The temptation can be to saddle up the horse and ride out to take one's assigned place in the Great American Culture War.
Except for one little thing. What we have in America is less a culture war than a constitutional war. And if we could just straighten out the latter, we'd go a long way toward diffusing the former.
That much has become clearer in the wake of last week's decision by the California Supreme Court to review the legality of Proposition 8. In California, gay Americans have marriage in all but name -- which many Americans might think a pretty reasonable compromise. But courts tend to think in absolutes -- and when they intervene, woe unto the losing side.
The great achievement of our system was to create a political order where these great moral disputes, as a matter of policy, are left to the people -- with allowance for differences according to region and locale. Moral agents have a role to play, generally by shaping the larger culture in which these decisions are framed and debated. But the outcome is left to the people acting through their elected representatives, a process that inevitably involves compromise, trade-offs and messy accommodations.
More here.
Maybe not. It's true that we've seen some wild things in the days since California voters approved Proposition 8 -- a measure on the state ballot prohibiting same-sex marriage. We've had the burning of the Book of Mormon. The mailing of envelopes filled with white powder to Mormon temples. And activists marching on Mormon churches with signs and shouts of "hate" and "bigot" directed at anyone who might have a difference of opinion.
In modern America, of course, these acts all come under the banner of "tolerance." And it's interesting that all those so outraged by the alleged disrespect toward the Quran shown by Guantanamo prison guards (the most sensational report was later retracted by Newsweek) appear unperturbed by the ugliness directed against our Mormon brothers and sisters. The temptation can be to saddle up the horse and ride out to take one's assigned place in the Great American Culture War.
Except for one little thing. What we have in America is less a culture war than a constitutional war. And if we could just straighten out the latter, we'd go a long way toward diffusing the former.
That much has become clearer in the wake of last week's decision by the California Supreme Court to review the legality of Proposition 8. In California, gay Americans have marriage in all but name -- which many Americans might think a pretty reasonable compromise. But courts tend to think in absolutes -- and when they intervene, woe unto the losing side.
The great achievement of our system was to create a political order where these great moral disputes, as a matter of policy, are left to the people -- with allowance for differences according to region and locale. Moral agents have a role to play, generally by shaping the larger culture in which these decisions are framed and debated. But the outcome is left to the people acting through their elected representatives, a process that inevitably involves compromise, trade-offs and messy accommodations.
More here.
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Thomas Jefferson, the California Supreme Court, and Proposition 8
Wise words from Thomas Jefferson, which are applicable to the California Supreme Court's agreeing to hear the legal challenges to Proposition 8:
“A judiciary independent of a king or executive alone, is a good thing; but independence of the will of the nation is a solecism, at least in a republican government.”
"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.”
“A usurping judiciary will become a despotism.”
More here.
“A judiciary independent of a king or executive alone, is a good thing; but independence of the will of the nation is a solecism, at least in a republican government.”
"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.”
“A usurping judiciary will become a despotism.”
More here.
Florida Judge Rules Florida Ban on Gay Adoption Unconstitutional
What is really interesting to me is that the judge used the rational basis standard (the most lenient standard and easiest to satisfy) and found that there is no "rational basis" to prohibit gays from adopting children. What about the rational basis that every study ever made shows that children do better with a father and mother? More judicial activism aimed at destroying the family.
MIAMI (AP) — A judge on Tuesday ruled that a strict Florida law that blocks gay people from adopting children is unconstitutional, declaring there was no legal or scientific reason for sexual orientation alone to prohibit anyone from adopting....
"Everywhere in the law where children are affected, the standard must always be what is in the best interest of the child," said Stemberger, an attorney in Orlando. "What is stunning to me is that when it comes to dealing with gays, that standard goes out the window. Children do better with a mother and a father."
More here.
MIAMI (AP) — A judge on Tuesday ruled that a strict Florida law that blocks gay people from adopting children is unconstitutional, declaring there was no legal or scientific reason for sexual orientation alone to prohibit anyone from adopting....
"Everywhere in the law where children are affected, the standard must always be what is in the best interest of the child," said Stemberger, an attorney in Orlando. "What is stunning to me is that when it comes to dealing with gays, that standard goes out the window. Children do better with a mother and a father."
More here.
The SSM Movement Is Not Comparable to the Civil Rights Movement
I didn't take kindly to being confronted by No on Prop. 8 folk on why Blacks didn't support civil rights for gays. That was their first mistake, this propensity to compare their equality struggle to ours. It's offensive and inappropriate, and here's why:
The civil rights struggle for racial equality was a deeply entrenched race caste system that was deeply rooted in the American psyche and integrated in the public policy agenda (Constitution) from the outset.
From slavery in the 17th, 18th and most of the 19th centuries to de jure and de facto segregation in the 19th and 20th centuries was a cultural impediment rooted in hate solely based on skin color that subjugated and marginalized black people in a very regimented way by the total society (women, children, foreigners, it didn't matter).
Signs were posted, protocols enforced and social (not legal) penalties enforced by the society (and reinforced by the courts). Discrimination could be imposed on sight. Not even the women's movement could be compared to America's race movement because not even women were mistreated, assaulted and killed with the frequency and volatility of the African American and Native American. Women, who were also discriminated on sight, were often turned (told to "go home") and assaulted if they persisted. African Americans were assaulted and killed if they persisted. Even womanists and feminists show a deference to the depth of hate waged against the African American and don't compare their movement to ours.
Not so with Gays and therein lies the problem. Sexuality is a disclosure (right of privacy) that allows people to be with who they please, in enjoyment and cohabitation. It also allows people to weigh their views on relationships against their moral values.
More here.
The civil rights struggle for racial equality was a deeply entrenched race caste system that was deeply rooted in the American psyche and integrated in the public policy agenda (Constitution) from the outset.
From slavery in the 17th, 18th and most of the 19th centuries to de jure and de facto segregation in the 19th and 20th centuries was a cultural impediment rooted in hate solely based on skin color that subjugated and marginalized black people in a very regimented way by the total society (women, children, foreigners, it didn't matter).
Signs were posted, protocols enforced and social (not legal) penalties enforced by the society (and reinforced by the courts). Discrimination could be imposed on sight. Not even the women's movement could be compared to America's race movement because not even women were mistreated, assaulted and killed with the frequency and volatility of the African American and Native American. Women, who were also discriminated on sight, were often turned (told to "go home") and assaulted if they persisted. African Americans were assaulted and killed if they persisted. Even womanists and feminists show a deference to the depth of hate waged against the African American and don't compare their movement to ours.
Not so with Gays and therein lies the problem. Sexuality is a disclosure (right of privacy) that allows people to be with who they please, in enjoyment and cohabitation. It also allows people to weigh their views on relationships against their moral values.
More here.
Pro-Marriage Advocates Support Mormons With Online Petition
More than 3,000 people, including long-time Mormon critic James Dobson of Focus on the Family, have signed an online petition aimed at thanking the LDS Church for its efforts on behalf of California's traditional marriage initiative known as Proposition 8.
"Anyone who participated in this process has come to admire the competence, diligence and moral courage that so many members of your faith community displayed as part of this coalition effort -- as Catholics, Evangelicals, Mormons, and people of other faith communities all came together to fight this great battle for marriage," says the petition, which is addressed to LDS President Thomas S. Monson.
More here
"Anyone who participated in this process has come to admire the competence, diligence and moral courage that so many members of your faith community displayed as part of this coalition effort -- as Catholics, Evangelicals, Mormons, and people of other faith communities all came together to fight this great battle for marriage," says the petition, which is addressed to LDS President Thomas S. Monson.
More here
Is challenge to Prop. 8 already lost in California Supreme Court?
I think this article reads way too much into Justice Kennard's vote against hearing the Prop 8 challenge. She decided not to hear the case, but since the case will be heard, she will maintain the same position she took in the In re Marriage Cases.
The California Supreme Court’s order last week to consider legal challenges to Proposition 8 contained one surprising twist -- the name of the sole justice who voted against hearing the cases.
Justice Joyce L. Kennard, a staunchly independent if not stubborn jurist, has a lengthy record of protecting gay rights, including the right to marry, and often sides with the underdog in rulings.
More here.
The California Supreme Court’s order last week to consider legal challenges to Proposition 8 contained one surprising twist -- the name of the sole justice who voted against hearing the cases.
Justice Joyce L. Kennard, a staunchly independent if not stubborn jurist, has a lengthy record of protecting gay rights, including the right to marry, and often sides with the underdog in rulings.
More here.
Monday, November 24, 2008
Legal Analysis of Proposition 8
This week, the California Supreme Court decided to hear a case posing two important questions. The first is whether the voter-adopted state constitutional ban on gay marriage passed in the November election, Proposition 8, was validly enacted. The second is - assuming Proposition 8 was indeed validly enacted -- what is the status of the same-sex marriages that were entered into between the California Supreme Court same-sex marriage ruling last spring and the enactment of Prop. 8? (As readers will recall, the court had previously ruled in May 2008 that the then-existing statutory ban on same-sex marriage violated the state constitution.)
In a series of columns beginning with this one, I will take up these complex questions in detail.
More here.
In a series of columns beginning with this one, I will take up these complex questions in detail.
More here.
Highlights of Recent Proposition 8-Related Crimes
Lansing, Mich. » Services at an evangelical church were disrupted by members of an extremist group called Bash Back! An affiliated group claimed it poured glue into the locks of an LDS church building near Olympia, Wash., and spray painted its walls.
Riverside, Calif. » Forty to 50 signs supporting Proposition 8 were found arranged in the form of a swastika on the front lawn of a Roman Catholic church.
San Luis Obispo, Calif. » Vandals poured adhesive on a doormat, key pad and window at two LDS churches and peppered a nearby Assembly of God church with eggs and toilet paper.
Sacramento » Ten area church buildings were vandalized, according to The Sacramento Bee.
Orangevale, Calif. » An LDS chapel sign and walkways were tagged with the phrases, "No on 8" and "hypocrites."
More here.
Riverside, Calif. » Forty to 50 signs supporting Proposition 8 were found arranged in the form of a swastika on the front lawn of a Roman Catholic church.
San Luis Obispo, Calif. » Vandals poured adhesive on a doormat, key pad and window at two LDS churches and peppered a nearby Assembly of God church with eggs and toilet paper.
Sacramento » Ten area church buildings were vandalized, according to The Sacramento Bee.
Orangevale, Calif. » An LDS chapel sign and walkways were tagged with the phrases, "No on 8" and "hypocrites."
More here.
Sunday, November 23, 2008
Anti-Defamation League Condemns No Crowd Protests for Targeting Specific Religion
On an earlier post I asked where the Anti-Defamation League was in condemning the No Crowd's behavior toward Mormons and other religions. The ADL was supportive of the No Crowd and condemning of Proposition 8. I wanted to know why the ADL was not consistent in defending rights. Turns out the ADL has greatly surprised me and I must give credit where credit is due. The ADL issued the following statement re the No Crowd's protests:
"Although we strongly opposed Proposition 8, its passage does not justify the defacement and destruction of property. We urge Californians to channel their frustration and disappointment in productive and responsible ways to work towards full equality for all Americans. To place anyone in fear of threat to their houses of worship or their personal security because they have expressed deeply held religious views is contrary to everything this nation represents. Our Constitution's First Amendment protects freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and freedom of religion for all of us."
For other similar statements from opponents of Prop 8, read here.
"Although we strongly opposed Proposition 8, its passage does not justify the defacement and destruction of property. We urge Californians to channel their frustration and disappointment in productive and responsible ways to work towards full equality for all Americans. To place anyone in fear of threat to their houses of worship or their personal security because they have expressed deeply held religious views is contrary to everything this nation represents. Our Constitution's First Amendment protects freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and freedom of religion for all of us."
For other similar statements from opponents of Prop 8, read here.
Proposition 8: Victory for Individual Liberty
What a great article. Please prove us wrong No Crowd by showing us that this really is just about marriage.
Proposition 8 was an unsung victory for defenders of individual liberty. Wait, I know what many people will say to this. How can a measure that prevents gay couples from getting a marriage license be beneficial to the defense of individual liberty? It's because that vote represented a line drawn in the sand, even if a thin one, preventing the government from furthering its control over the institution....
None of this is to say that homosexuals are inferior human beings who deserve less liberty. However, it's time for homosexuals to realize that their cause is not as worthy as that of women or blacks because what separates them from everyone else is most likely, at the biological level, merely a minor genetic defect. Likewise, defenders of individual liberty need to realize that even the bigots did everyone a favor here by temporarily delaying the state's advance on its control over even the definition of marriage.
It's possible that some of us have been wrong in judging many of the gay rights activists as being vicious totalitarian thugs in the aftermath of Proposition 8. So then, the challenge to them is to prove us wrong. They can start by offering up a counter proposition to dismantle state licensing of marriage in California and to allow each religious institution to define for itself what marriage is between consenting adult parties, as it always should have been. Surely, if this is really just about getting married, they can find willing parties among the Church of Scientology or the Unitarians at the very least.
More here.
Proposition 8 was an unsung victory for defenders of individual liberty. Wait, I know what many people will say to this. How can a measure that prevents gay couples from getting a marriage license be beneficial to the defense of individual liberty? It's because that vote represented a line drawn in the sand, even if a thin one, preventing the government from furthering its control over the institution....
None of this is to say that homosexuals are inferior human beings who deserve less liberty. However, it's time for homosexuals to realize that their cause is not as worthy as that of women or blacks because what separates them from everyone else is most likely, at the biological level, merely a minor genetic defect. Likewise, defenders of individual liberty need to realize that even the bigots did everyone a favor here by temporarily delaying the state's advance on its control over even the definition of marriage.
It's possible that some of us have been wrong in judging many of the gay rights activists as being vicious totalitarian thugs in the aftermath of Proposition 8. So then, the challenge to them is to prove us wrong. They can start by offering up a counter proposition to dismantle state licensing of marriage in California and to allow each religious institution to define for itself what marriage is between consenting adult parties, as it always should have been. Surely, if this is really just about getting married, they can find willing parties among the Church of Scientology or the Unitarians at the very least.
More here.
More Gay Hate Toward the Mormons
******WARNING******
This music video contains offensive language and sexual innuendo. I post it, however, because it is a perfect representation of the No Crowd for what they really are. It is a song by Margaret Cho protesting the Mormon involvement with Prop 8. For the typical non-atheist God-fearing person it is extremely offensive and hate-filled. Congratulations No Crowd, you are showing the world what type of people you really are.
This music video contains offensive language and sexual innuendo. I post it, however, because it is a perfect representation of the No Crowd for what they really are. It is a song by Margaret Cho protesting the Mormon involvement with Prop 8. For the typical non-atheist God-fearing person it is extremely offensive and hate-filled. Congratulations No Crowd, you are showing the world what type of people you really are.
Friday, November 21, 2008
More Protests Planned at L.A. LDS Temple
They plan to hold a peaceful protest this time? As peaceful as the last protest at the LA Temple?
The No Crowd's View on Why They Lost Prop 8
The L.A. Times reports (bold italics by me)
There's been a lot of outrage from the No on Proposition 8 camp since California voters approved a ban on gay marriage. But until now, there has been less soul searching about what went wrong. But Terry Leftgoff, founder of the Gay and Lesbian Business Assn. of Santa Barbara, has a thoughtful piece on WeHo News looking at how the opposition to Proposition 8 fell short. It did, he says, on several levels: A mixed message, failing to respond to attacks from Yes on 8 forces, little black and Latino outreach. A snippet:
The No on 8 campaign began by allowing the Yes on 8 proponents to define the debate and it was never able to recover. This violated the first rule of political campaigns, which is to never let your opponent define you first. After a near fatal slow start, every emotional attack ad from Yes on 8 received a tepid intellectual response from No on 8. That's true. The only response I heard to any of the Yes campaign's concerns was "that will never happen" or "you're just using fear tactics." Even the supposed legal analyses I read from the No Crowd simply quoted the law and said "under the law it will not happen." They completely ignored the slippery slope concern. This violated another rule of political campaigns, which is to quickly respond in equal kind to an attack so it is not allowed to penetrate the public mind. Instead of running a diverse multi-message campaign of persuasion, the media message was emotionless, monotone and uncompelling. Are you kidding me? I actually thought the media message from the No Crowd was the best part of their campaign. I especially liked the commercials based on the Microsoft v. Apple model. In short, the media messages failed to move or even educate voters about the issue and instead appealed to a single abstract principle -- equality -- that was not sufficiently persuasive or connected to the content of the proposition. Not just "equality" -- you also called us racists and bigots since afterall voting against same sex marriage is the equivalent of putting the Japanese internment camps or prohibiting blacks from marrying whites. I think what happened was that people saw through your disingenuous comparisons.
Ben Ehrenreich, writing in The Advocate, looks at whether No on 8 could have been run better. Lorri Jean of the L.A. Gay and Lesbian Center told him apathy was a problem:
Jean and others at the helm of the No on 8 campaign say they had a hard time awakening equivalent enthusiasm in the LGBT community, particularly because of the steady stream of polls showing Proposition 8 trailing by as much as 17 and 14 percentage points. “It was difficult raising money because of those polls,” Kors says, adding that the campaign’s internal numbers never reflected such comfortable margins of victory. “If we could have found a way to energize our community faster, we could have competed with them,” Jean says. “We experienced enormous complacency in our community until we finally put out the word that we were going down.” Well, now you have your energy -- all you needed to do was pick an easy target that is politically correct to stigmatize, i.e., the Mormons, and blame all of your woes on them. Next time around you should just run commercials saying how Mormons are evil and Prop 8 was just the result of Mormon money and Mormon effort.
Iowa Supreme Court Set to Hear SSM Case
The passage of Proposition 8 in California came as an unwelcome surprise to many gay marriage proponents. Now, many eyes turn to an upcoming Iowa Supreme Court case.
"It could be a big step forward for Iowa and something Iowa could be proud of," said Justin Uebelhor, director of communications for One Iowa, an equality advocacy organization. "It is important for Iowa to take the lead on this."
Proponents of gay marriage spoke with the Press-Citizen editorial board Thursday, seeking editorial support in advance of a high-profile case next month.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Why License Marriage?
Let's rethink Leviathan. The way I see it, Prop 8 was the necessary result of an over-intrusive, over-sized government. The piece below makes some similar points.
"Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." So provides Proposition 8 that overturned the four-to-three decision of the California Supreme Court, which gave (albeit temporarily) gay couples the same right to form family unions as heterosexual couples.
Today's harsh skirmishing over Prop 8 starts from the common assumption that the state has the right to issue marriage licenses, so that the only question worth asking is whether it can discriminate between gay and straight couples. But to the libertarian, the antecedent inquiry is whether the state has any proper role in issuing marriage licenses at all.
More here.
City of Fremont Joins Legal Challenge Against Prop 8
FREMONT — A legal challenge to the validity of Proposition 8 — the recently approved ballot measure calling for a state ban on same-sex marriage — will include the city of Fremont as a petitioner.
After a sharp debate, the City Council voted 4-1 on Tuesday to join a petition initiated by the city and county of San Francisco to invalidate the measure, which defines marriage as being only between a man and a woman.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Castro Queers to Yes Crowd: Disagree with Us and We'll [Homo]Sexually Molest You
SAN FRANCISCO, November 18, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A mob of homosexuals sexually and physically assaulted a group of Christians praying together in the city's Castro District last week, in apparent retaliation for the recent defeat of homosexual marriage in California.
The Christians, a group of Evangelical Protestants who regularly go to the predominantly homosexual Castro District to sing songs and pray with passers-by, say they were holding hands and singing "Amazing Grace" when a angry mob began to shove and kick them, steal their belongings, pour hot coffee on their faces, and sexually assault them.
More here.
The Christians, a group of Evangelical Protestants who regularly go to the predominantly homosexual Castro District to sing songs and pray with passers-by, say they were holding hands and singing "Amazing Grace" when a angry mob began to shove and kick them, steal their belongings, pour hot coffee on their faces, and sexually assault them.
More here.
California Supreme Court Will Review Prop 8 Challenge
The California Supreme Court has issued an order today which, among other things, grants review of the legal challenges to Proposition 8. Other highlights from the order include:
The L.A. Times has written an article about the order here. The San Francisco Chronicle has a piece on the order here.
- The request to stay Proposition 8 is DENIED. This means that Proposition 8 is in effect and gay couples may not get married any longer in California. This, of course, could change if the Supreme Court overturns Prop 8, but for now Prop 8 is valid.
- The Yes on 8 Campaign and other official proponents of Proposition 8 are permitted to intervene as respondents. This means they will have party status in the case and can file oppositions to the legal challenges.
- The issues to be briefed include: (1) Is Proposition 8 a revision or an amendment to the California Constitution? (2) Does Prop 8 violate the separation of powers doctrine under the California Constitution? (3) If Prop 8 is not unconstitutional, what happens to the same sex marriages performed before Prop 8 was passed?
The L.A. Times has written an article about the order here. The San Francisco Chronicle has a piece on the order here.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Sixth Lawsuit Filed in California Supreme Court to Challenge Prop 8
This time by a group of churches.
Monday, November 17, 2008
You Are Correct - Marriage is a "Civil Right"!
The No Crowd at all of their protests and even before the passage of Proposition 8 have clamored that marriage is a "civil right." They are absolutely right! But, in line with their many other legal and philosophical misconstructions (such as equal protection which I'll address at a later date), the No Crowd misunderstands what is a "civil right." Indeed, the fact that marriage is a "civil right" undermines the foundation for same sex marriage and validates and vindicates Proposition 8 and all those who supported it.
What is a civil right?
A civil right is a "right" provided by a government. Such a "right" has no foundation in natural law. Civil rights are nothing more than "rights" created out of thin air by the Legislative body of a civil government. As such, "civil rights" can be invented, repealed, amended, altered, changed, and destroyed according to the social evolution of a society and in accordance with the governmental structure of that particular society. In a constitutional or democratic republic, therefore, "civil rights" are determined through majoritarian decisions.
What is an inalienable or natural right?
An "inalienable right" or "natural right" is a right that is founded on a source independent of government and society. It is a right with which every human being is born. The Founders of the United States were intimately familiar with "natural rights" and appealed to Providence as the creator of such rights.
"Natural rights" are nondiscriminatory. Every human, regardless of race, creed, color, gender, and yes, even sexual orientation, is naturally endowed with such rights. Western Civilization, particularly English and French political philosophy, has identified three basic natural or inalienable rights: life, liberty, and property.
Marriage: Civil or Natural Right?
Marriage originated as a private institution; it is not a government creation. For Christians, Jews, and other religions, marriage was created by God, beginning with the marriage of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. For millenia, no married couple needed government approval for their marriage. Today, however, the State has interjected itself into marriage by requiring couples to obtain a marriage license.
The State's involvement in marriage creates a dichotomy of rights. Under natural law no one is born with the "right" to have a government recognize a marriage. Natural law, more specifically the right to liberty, only gives each individual the right to marry another person (who consents obviously) through a private means. Thus, under natural law homosexuals have the natural right to enter into a union through a private means with another of the same sex and can call it "marriage." Homosexuals (and heterosexuals for that matter) do not, however, have a natural right to have a State recognize their private "marriage." "Marriage," therefore, is a "natural right" in a private context, but it becomes a "civil right" only in so far as society says it is.
How does this apply to Proposition 8?
The No Crowd claims that they have a "civil right" to marry the person of their choice, but they are equating a "civil right" with a "natural right" which they do not have. Thus, marriage is a "civil right" and as such it is subject to being defined by society. Proposition 8 defined the "civil right" of marriage in California and that "civil right" may be exercised by anyone who wishes to marry one other person of the opposite sex.
When society determines that same sex marriage is a "civil right," then the No Crowd will be on solid legal and philosophical grounds, but government-endorsed marriage never will and never can be an inalienable right.
What is a civil right?
A civil right is a "right" provided by a government. Such a "right" has no foundation in natural law. Civil rights are nothing more than "rights" created out of thin air by the Legislative body of a civil government. As such, "civil rights" can be invented, repealed, amended, altered, changed, and destroyed according to the social evolution of a society and in accordance with the governmental structure of that particular society. In a constitutional or democratic republic, therefore, "civil rights" are determined through majoritarian decisions.
What is an inalienable or natural right?
An "inalienable right" or "natural right" is a right that is founded on a source independent of government and society. It is a right with which every human being is born. The Founders of the United States were intimately familiar with "natural rights" and appealed to Providence as the creator of such rights.
"Natural rights" are nondiscriminatory. Every human, regardless of race, creed, color, gender, and yes, even sexual orientation, is naturally endowed with such rights. Western Civilization, particularly English and French political philosophy, has identified three basic natural or inalienable rights: life, liberty, and property.
Marriage: Civil or Natural Right?
Marriage originated as a private institution; it is not a government creation. For Christians, Jews, and other religions, marriage was created by God, beginning with the marriage of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. For millenia, no married couple needed government approval for their marriage. Today, however, the State has interjected itself into marriage by requiring couples to obtain a marriage license.
The State's involvement in marriage creates a dichotomy of rights. Under natural law no one is born with the "right" to have a government recognize a marriage. Natural law, more specifically the right to liberty, only gives each individual the right to marry another person (who consents obviously) through a private means. Thus, under natural law homosexuals have the natural right to enter into a union through a private means with another of the same sex and can call it "marriage." Homosexuals (and heterosexuals for that matter) do not, however, have a natural right to have a State recognize their private "marriage." "Marriage," therefore, is a "natural right" in a private context, but it becomes a "civil right" only in so far as society says it is.
How does this apply to Proposition 8?
The No Crowd claims that they have a "civil right" to marry the person of their choice, but they are equating a "civil right" with a "natural right" which they do not have. Thus, marriage is a "civil right" and as such it is subject to being defined by society. Proposition 8 defined the "civil right" of marriage in California and that "civil right" may be exercised by anyone who wishes to marry one other person of the opposite sex.
When society determines that same sex marriage is a "civil right," then the No Crowd will be on solid legal and philosophical grounds, but government-endorsed marriage never will and never can be an inalienable right.
Fifth Law Suit Filed in California Supreme Court
Another lawsuit challenging Prop 8 was filed today by the Equal Rights Advocates and California Women's Law Center.
Additionally, three more amicus letter briefs were filed in opposition to the lawsuits.
Check the California Supreme Court's Proposition 8 filings page for more details.
Additionally, three more amicus letter briefs were filed in opposition to the lawsuits.
Check the California Supreme Court's Proposition 8 filings page for more details.
Proponents of Proposition 8 Urge California Supreme Court to Hear Challenges to Measure's Validity
SAN FRANCISCO, Nov 17, 2008 /PRNewswire-USNewswire via COMTEX/ -- Proponents and Yes on 8 campaign seek to intervene in cases challenging Proposition 8, declare confidence in the validity of Proposition 8 and urge Supreme Court to reject a stay of the initiativ.
The official proponents of Proposition 8 and the campaign committee responsible for its enactment by voters today urged the California Supreme Court to accept original jurisdiction of three cases challenging the measure's validity and have petitioned the Supreme Court to intervene in the cases as Real Parties in Interest. Expressing confidence that the Supreme Court will uphold the validity of Proposition 8, the authors of the measure urged the Supreme Court to deny requests to stay implementation of Proposition 8 pending resolution of the legal issues.
More here.
More here.
Comparing Prop 8 to Colorado's 1992 Amendment
In 1992, by a 53%-47% split, Coloradans passed an amendment to their state Constitution that repealed laws in Aspen, Boulder and Denver that prohibited discrimination against gays. The amendment barred the state and its political subdivisions from adopting or enforcing any law "whereby homosexual, lesbian or bisexual orientation, conduct, practices or relationships" are the basis of a claim of discrimination. Does this sound familiar?
As the proponents of same-sex marriage rights determine the proper response to Proposition 8, it is illuminating to compare Colorado's rejection of "gay rights" with California's repudiation of "gay marriage."
More here.
As the proponents of same-sex marriage rights determine the proper response to Proposition 8, it is illuminating to compare Colorado's rejection of "gay rights" with California's repudiation of "gay marriage."
More here.
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Financing the Homosexual Agenda: The Cabinet
Has anyone noticed that the Yes on 8 Crowd has not been protesting in front of these individuals' homes or vandalizing their property? Interesting.
Also, Gay Mafia, be on notice that wherever your money is, mine will be countering it (except I'm not a millionaire so I guess I'll have to join tens of thousands of normal people to counter your financing of the destruction of moral society).
A few weeks before Virginia's legislative elections in 2005, a researcher working on behalf of a clandestine group of wealthy, gay political donors telephoned a Virginia legislator named Adam Ebbin. Then, as now, Ebbin was the only openly gay member of the state's general assembly. The researcher wanted Ebbin's advice on how the men he represented could spend their considerable funds to help defeat anti-gay Virginia politicians.....
There were five benefactors: David Bohnett of Beverly Hills, Calif., who in 1999 sold the company he had co-founded, Geo-Cities, to Yahoo! in a deal worth $5 billion on the day it was announced; Timothy Gill of Denver, another tech multimillionaire; James Hormel of San Francisco, grandson of George, who founded the famous meat company; Jon Stryker of Kalamazoo, Mich., the billionaire grandson of the founder of medical-technology giant Stryker Corp.; and Henry van Ameringen, whose father Arnold Louis van Ameringen started a Manhattan-based import company that later became the mammoth International Flavors & Fragrances.
Also, Gay Mafia, be on notice that wherever your money is, mine will be countering it (except I'm not a millionaire so I guess I'll have to join tens of thousands of normal people to counter your financing of the destruction of moral society).
A few weeks before Virginia's legislative elections in 2005, a researcher working on behalf of a clandestine group of wealthy, gay political donors telephoned a Virginia legislator named Adam Ebbin. Then, as now, Ebbin was the only openly gay member of the state's general assembly. The researcher wanted Ebbin's advice on how the men he represented could spend their considerable funds to help defeat anti-gay Virginia politicians.....
There were five benefactors: David Bohnett of Beverly Hills, Calif., who in 1999 sold the company he had co-founded, Geo-Cities, to Yahoo! in a deal worth $5 billion on the day it was announced; Timothy Gill of Denver, another tech multimillionaire; James Hormel of San Francisco, grandson of George, who founded the famous meat company; Jon Stryker of Kalamazoo, Mich., the billionaire grandson of the founder of medical-technology giant Stryker Corp.; and Henry van Ameringen, whose father Arnold Louis van Ameringen started a Manhattan-based import company that later became the mammoth International Flavors & Fragrances.
The five men spent $138,000 in Virginia that autumn, according to state records compiled by the nonprofit Virginia Public Access Project. Of that, $48,000 went directly to the candidates Ebbin recommended. Ebbin got $45,000 for his PAC, the Virginia Progress Fund, so he could give to the candidates himself. Another $45,000 went to Equality Virginia, a gay-rights group that was putting money into many of the same races.
On Election Day that year, the Virginia legislature stayed solidly in Republican hands; the Democratic Party netted just one seat. But that larger outcome masked an intriguing development: anti-gay conservatives had suffered considerably. For instance, in northern Virginia, a Democrat named Charles Caputo (who received $6,500 from Ebbin's PAC) had beaten a Christian youth minister, Chris Craddock, by an unexpectedly large margin, with a vote of 56% to 41%. Three other candidates critical of gays were also defeated, including delegate Richard Black, who had long opposed gay equality in Richmond. Black had had no single donation as large as the $20,000 that Ebbin's PAC gave his opponent. "This was my ninth election campaign, and it wasn't unusual to have homosexuals involved," says Black, who now practices law. "But it was different, certainly, in degree. There had not been a concerted influx of money from homosexuals as a group before."
The group that donated the money to use against Black and the others is known as the Cabinet, although you won't find that name on a letterhead or even on the Internet. Aside from Bohnett, 52; Gill, 55; Hormel, 75; Stryker, 50; and Van Ameringen, 78, the other members of the Cabinet are Jonathan Lewis (49-year-old grandson of Joseph, co-founder of Progressive Insurance) and Linda Ketner, 58, heiress to the Food Lion fortune, who is running for Congress against GOP Representative Henry Brown Jr. of South Carolina.
More here.
Gay Tolerance and Religion
Harvard Law professor Mary Ann Glendon wrote in 2004, during the same-sex marriage debate in Massachusetts, ''the experience in other countries reveals that once these arrangements become law, there will be no live-and-let-live policy for those who differ. Gay-marriage proponents use the language of openness, tolerance, and diversity, yet one foreseeable effect of their success will be to usher in an era of intolerance and discrimination...The ax will fall most heavily on religious persons and groups that don't go along." ...
George W. Dent, Jr., wrote of this conflict in the Kentucky Law Journal, “[T]his war is not amenable to compromise. [T]he goal of the gay movement is not primarily economic; most gays already have above-average incomes. The goal, rather, is approval of homosexuality as legally and socially equal to heterosexuality. Because of the tremendous influence of religion in America , this goal cannot be achieved unless religious groups either surrender, thus affirming this equality or, at least, those that do not are reduced to a despised minority compelled to keep its views to itself. In other words, the goal of the gay movement is to confine its opponents in the closet.”...
More here.
George W. Dent, Jr., wrote of this conflict in the Kentucky Law Journal, “[T]his war is not amenable to compromise. [T]he goal of the gay movement is not primarily economic; most gays already have above-average incomes. The goal, rather, is approval of homosexuality as legally and socially equal to heterosexuality. Because of the tremendous influence of religion in America , this goal cannot be achieved unless religious groups either surrender, thus affirming this equality or, at least, those that do not are reduced to a despised minority compelled to keep its views to itself. In other words, the goal of the gay movement is to confine its opponents in the closet.”...
More here.
A Mormon Cop's Experience With The L.A. Protest Outside the LDS Temple
I am a Los Angeles Police Department detective supervisor running a sex crimes unit covering the western quarter of the city, which also includes the area where the Los Angeles temple is located. I have a fantastic crew of 20 detectives who are an amazing mixture of races and sexes. I have several detectives who are openly gay or lesbian. This orientation has nothing to do with their efficiency as investigators. I deeply respect and like these individuals. I enjoy working with them. My life is often in their hands when we serve high risk search or arrest warrants. I trust them implicitly....
In the Bureau command post there was a large screen television displaying scenes from the protest outside the Los Angeles temple. Imagine my surprise, when angry protestors began rushing the closed temple gates, and I heard an officer in the command post say, “I hope they burn that place to the ground.”
Imagine my even stronger surprise when another officer replied, “They better hope they don't get through the gates, because the Mormons have an army in a bunker under the temple that will come out and kill them all.”
More here.
In the Bureau command post there was a large screen television displaying scenes from the protest outside the Los Angeles temple. Imagine my surprise, when angry protestors began rushing the closed temple gates, and I heard an officer in the command post say, “I hope they burn that place to the ground.”
Imagine my even stronger surprise when another officer replied, “They better hope they don't get through the gates, because the Mormons have an army in a bunker under the temple that will come out and kill them all.”
More here.
L.A. Times on Mormons and Prop 8
Reporting from Salt Lake City -- In June, leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints made a fateful decision. They called on California Mormons to donate their time and money to the campaign for Proposition 8, which would overturn a state Supreme Court ruling that permitted gay marriage.
That push helped the initiative win narrow passage on election day. And it has made the Mormon Church, which for years has striven to be seen as part of the American mainstream, a political target.
More here.
That push helped the initiative win narrow passage on election day. And it has made the Mormon Church, which for years has striven to be seen as part of the American mainstream, a political target.
More here.
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Friday, November 14, 2008
Fourth Lawsuit Filed With Cal Supreme Court to Challenge Prop 8
Today a fourth lawsuit was filed in the California Supreme Court to challenge Proposition 8. The case was filed by Asian Pacific American Legal Center, California State Conference of the NAACP, Equal Justice Society, Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, and NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.
You can read their petition here.
You can read their petition here.
Mormon Website Hacked and Replaced with Gay Porn
The No Crowd's feigning the moral high ground is so transparent.
Owners of a Web site that specializes in advice and information for members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints say their site was attacked the day following passage of Proposition 8 by people they believe opposed the measure.
Owners of a Web site that specializes in advice and information for members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints say their site was attacked the day following passage of Proposition 8 by people they believe opposed the measure.
Scott Proctor of Meridian magazine said the site was hacked into early Nov. 5, and its home page was replaced with "horrible, explicit lesbians films placed all over the cover." Engineers took the site down immediately after the break-in was discovered, he said.
More here.
Fake Anthrax Mailed to LDS Temples and Knights of Columbus
The FBI may not be willing to say it but I will: of course these mailings are related to Prop 8.
Also, you will notice on the comments section of this story that the moderator stated "Because of the high number of comments submitted on this story that contain threats or references to violence, no more comments will be posted on this story." This is truly sad that we have come to such a divide.
The LDS temples in Salt Lake City and Los Angeles received envelopes on Thursday containing a white powdery substance. So did the Knights of Columbus, a Catholic fraternal organization based in New Haven, Conn. Both organizations were heavy backers of Proposition 8, the measure in California that narrowly passed Nov. 4, banning same-sex marriage.
The FBI said it is a "strong possibility" that all three letters are linked, but federal investigators reiterated they have no information to point a finger of blame at the proposition and its opponents.
Also, you will notice on the comments section of this story that the moderator stated "Because of the high number of comments submitted on this story that contain threats or references to violence, no more comments will be posted on this story." This is truly sad that we have come to such a divide.
Video Courtesy of KSL.com
The LDS temples in Salt Lake City and Los Angeles received envelopes on Thursday containing a white powdery substance. So did the Knights of Columbus, a Catholic fraternal organization based in New Haven, Conn. Both organizations were heavy backers of Proposition 8, the measure in California that narrowly passed Nov. 4, banning same-sex marriage.
The FBI said it is a "strong possibility" that all three letters are linked, but federal investigators reiterated they have no information to point a finger of blame at the proposition and its opponents.
"The evidence does not lead to that right now and it would be irresponsible to say anything otherwise," Becerra said.
More here.
Donations to Proposition 8
I took the available information from the Secretary of State's website (current as of 10/18/2008) and put together the following table regarding the donations for and against Proposition 8:
So the No Crowd raised 46% more than the Yes on 8 Crowd and they are complaining that Mormon money is what tipped the scales. You may need to reassess that argument.
| FOR | ||
| PROTECTMARRIAGE.COM, A PROJECT OF CALIFORNIA RENEWAL | $27,931,044.63 | |
NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR MARRIAGE CALIFORNIA - YES ON 8, SPONSORED BY NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR MARRIAGE | $1,825,657.97 | |
| YES ON PROPOSITION 8, SPONSORED BY CAPITOL RESOURCE FAMILY IMPACT | $71,383.88 | |
CALIFORNIANS FOR MARRIAGE, YES ON PROPOSITION 8, SPONSORED BY THE ALLIANCE FOR MARRIAGE FOUNDATION | $7,530.00 | |
TOTAL FOR PROPOSITION 8 | $29,835,616.48 | |
| AGAINST | ||
| NO ON 8, EQUALITY FOR ALL | $26,683,254.71 | |
NO ON 8 - EQUALITY CALIFORNIA | $10,703,984.18 | |
LOG CABIN REPUBLICANS AGAINST 8 | $67,593.86 | |
HUMAN RIGHTS CAMPAIGN CALIFORNIA MARRIAGE PAC - NO ON PROP 8 | $3,260,724.75 | |
NO ON PROPOSITION 8, CAMPAIGN FOR MARRIAGE EQUALITY, A PROJECT OF THE AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA | $1,586,081.26 | |
NO ON 8 - MARRIAGE EQUALITY USA | $59,432.74 | |
NO ON 8, NATIONAL CENTER FOR LESBIAN RIGHTS SOCIAL JUSTICE FUND | $482,107.65 | |
CALIFORNIANS AGAINST ELIMINATING BASIC RIGHTS, NO ON PROP. 8 | $447,848.52 | |
TASK FORCE CALIFORNIA COMMITTEE - NO ON 8 - SPONSORED BY THE NATIONAL GAY AND LESBIAN TASK FORCE FOUNDATION/ACTION FUND | $271,350.98 | |
TOTAL AGAINST | $43,562,378.65 |
So the No Crowd raised 46% more than the Yes on 8 Crowd and they are complaining that Mormon money is what tipped the scales. You may need to reassess that argument.
Mormon Church First Presidency Issues Statement on Protests
From the LDS Newsroom, the First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints issued the following statement:
"Since the people of California voted to reaffirm the sanctity of traditional marriage between a man and a woman on November 4, 2008, places of worship have been targeted by opponents of Proposition 8 with demonstrations and, in some cases, vandalism. People of faith have been intimidated for simply exercising their democratic rights. These are not actions that are worthy of the democratic ideals of our nation. The end of a free and fair election should not be the beginning of a hostile response in America.
"The Church is keenly aware of the differences of opinion on this difficult and sensitive matter. The reasons for this principled stand in defense of marriage have already been articulated elsewhere. However, some of what we have seen since Californians voted to pass Proposition 8 has been deeply disappointing.
"Attacks on churches and intimidation of people of faith have no place in civil discourse over controversial issues. People of faith have a democratic right to express their views in the public square without fear of reprisal. Efforts to force citizens out of public discussion should be deplored by people of goodwill everywhere.
"We call upon those who have honest disagreements on this issue to urge restraint upon the extreme actions of a few that are further polarizing our communities and urge them to act in a spirit of mutual respect and civility towards each other."
"Since the people of California voted to reaffirm the sanctity of traditional marriage between a man and a woman on November 4, 2008, places of worship have been targeted by opponents of Proposition 8 with demonstrations and, in some cases, vandalism. People of faith have been intimidated for simply exercising their democratic rights. These are not actions that are worthy of the democratic ideals of our nation. The end of a free and fair election should not be the beginning of a hostile response in America.
"The Church is keenly aware of the differences of opinion on this difficult and sensitive matter. The reasons for this principled stand in defense of marriage have already been articulated elsewhere. However, some of what we have seen since Californians voted to pass Proposition 8 has been deeply disappointing.
"Attacks on churches and intimidation of people of faith have no place in civil discourse over controversial issues. People of faith have a democratic right to express their views in the public square without fear of reprisal. Efforts to force citizens out of public discussion should be deplored by people of goodwill everywhere.
"We call upon those who have honest disagreements on this issue to urge restraint upon the extreme actions of a few that are further polarizing our communities and urge them to act in a spirit of mutual respect and civility towards each other."
Unashamedly Partial
The media doesn't even pretend to be impartial. Check out this talking head who doesn't give the Prop 8 proponent from Liberty Counsel any room to speak because she is constantly talking over him. On the other hand, she sits back and allows the SSM advocate to say anything and everything he wants. Free Speech is good, as long as the Marxists agree with what is being said.
Protests in All 50 States This Saturday?
People in favor of legalizing same-sex marriage will gather for a rally and march in Raleigh at 1:30 p.m. Saturday to protest California's Proposition 8, which amended that state's constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage rights.
Previously, California had allowed same-sex marriage.
The rally is part of a nationwide movement. Rallies will be held at the same time Saturday in all 50 states at city halls and state capitals to protest "Prop 8" and other similar measures that were passed in Arizona and Florida.
More here.
The Supremes Ask the AG to Reply
I'm sure that we can expect an opinion from the Supremes as well-reasoned, articulate, and legally solid as their opinion overturning Proposition 22. Let's see how many "rights" they make up this time.
The California Supreme Court has asked state Attorney General Jerry Brown to reply by Monday to lawsuits challenging the voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage - a sign that the justices are taking the cases seriously and will not dispose of them quickly.
More here.
The California Supreme Court has asked state Attorney General Jerry Brown to reply by Monday to lawsuits challenging the voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage - a sign that the justices are taking the cases seriously and will not dispose of them quickly.
More here.
Seattle Prop 8 Protest
This Saturday a protest against Prop 8 will be held in Seattle.
"Protesters are expected to unload on the Mormon Church, whose members gave more than $20 million to the Proposition 8 campaign, according to estimates by opponents quoted by the Los Angeles Times last week. California does not track donors' religious affiliation."
It doesn't appear that the protest will be held in front of the LDS Temple in Bellevue, so I'm not sure what it means that the protesters are "expected to unload on the Mormon Church."
More here.
"Protesters are expected to unload on the Mormon Church, whose members gave more than $20 million to the Proposition 8 campaign, according to estimates by opponents quoted by the Los Angeles Times last week. California does not track donors' religious affiliation."
It doesn't appear that the protest will be held in front of the LDS Temple in Bellevue, so I'm not sure what it means that the protesters are "expected to unload on the Mormon Church."
More here.
Boycotts
I have no problem with people boycotting businesses. I think economic warfare is much preferable to other alternatives. The No Crowd, however, doesn't even know who they should be protesting. People who donate to a political cause do so individually, not in the name of their employer. That's one of the biggest problems I've found with the No Crowd, they don't have their facts straight.
I love the guy in this video who says that Prop 8 is a matter of "human rights." Does this guy even know what a "human right" is? I wonder if any of these people even know who John Locke, Thomas Acquinas, Rousseau are let alone whether they've read them. The No Crowd just makes up rights as they go along.
I love the guy in this video who says that Prop 8 is a matter of "human rights." Does this guy even know what a "human right" is? I wonder if any of these people even know who John Locke, Thomas Acquinas, Rousseau are let alone whether they've read them. The No Crowd just makes up rights as they go along.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Another Lawsuit, This Time in Federal Court
. . . Even before the groups opposing Prop 8 conceded on November 6, three lawsuits had been filed in the California Supreme Court, arguing that the measure had been invalidly enacted and asking the court to issue an order blocking it from taking effect. On November 10, a spokesman for the court announced that it would make a statement about the lawsuits this week.
A fourth lawsuit, filed in the federal district court in Santa Ana, on behalf of a gay male couple who married over the summer, argues that Prop 8 violates the US Constitution, though news reports were vague about the specific theory laid out . . .
Assaulting Old Women and Stomping on Crosses
I love these people. They are so transparent. America, this is what you can expect when the No Crowd finally prevails.
Playing the Race Card On Gay Marriage
Jeff Jacoby writes in the Boston Globe:
. . . Well, let’s see. The civil rights once denied to black Americans included the right to register as a voter, the right to cast a ballot, the right to use numerous public facilities, the right to get a fair hearing in court, the right to send their children to an integrated public school, and the right to equal opportunity in housing and employment. Have gay people been denied any of these rights? Have they been forced to sit in the back of buses? Confined to segregated neighborhoods? Barred from serving on juries? Subjected to systematic economic exploitation?
Plainly, declining to change the timeless definition of marriage deprives no one of “the civil rights once denied” to blacks, and it is an absurdity to claim otherwise. It is also a poisonous slur: For if opposing same-sex marriage is like opposing civil rights, then voters who backed Proposition 8 are no better than racists, the moral equivalent of those who turned the fire hoses on blacks in Birmingham in 1963 . . .
Complaint Filed Against Mormon Church for Proposition 8 Efforts
These people are truly desperate.
Californians Against Hate, an independent nonprofit organization committed to shining the spotlight on hefty donors to the Yes on Proposition 8 campaign, upped the ante against the LDS Church today.
The group filed a complaint with California's Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC), claiming The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints failed to report nonmonetary contributions that helped pass the measure - one that defines marriage as between a man and a woman, issuing a huge blow to the movement for same-sex marriages.
More here.
Californians Against Hate, an independent nonprofit organization committed to shining the spotlight on hefty donors to the Yes on Proposition 8 campaign, upped the ante against the LDS Church today.
The group filed a complaint with California's Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC), claiming The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints failed to report nonmonetary contributions that helped pass the measure - one that defines marriage as between a man and a woman, issuing a huge blow to the movement for same-sex marriages.
More here.
Legal Grounds for Challenging Proposition 8
A lot of people have been asking me how the No Crowd can petition the Cal Supremes to overturn Proposition 8. I provide this post as a basic primer for understanding the legal challenges that have been filed with the Supremes.
Article 18 of the California Constitution provides authority for the California Constitution to be amended and revised.
Section 3 of Article 18 permits the "electors" to amend the constitution via initiative.
The only method provided in the Constitution by which it can be revised, however, is set forth in sections 1 and 2 of article XVIII which permit revision only by way of:
The Supremes, however, have given us some guidance. In Livermore v. Waite, 102 Cal. 113 (1894) the Court said that an "amendment implies such an addition or change within the lines of the original instrument as will effect an improvement, or better carry out the purpose for which it is framed." (102 Cal. at 119.) A revision, on the other hand, is:
In the instances when the California Supreme Court has found a law to be a revision rather than an amendment, however, the law generally included multiple new laws. For example, in McFadden v. Jordan, 32 Cal. 2d 330 (1948) the initiative at issue actually proposed to add a new Article which consisted of 12 separate sections divided into some 208 subsections set forth in more than 21,000 words. At that time, the California Constitution only had 55,000 words. So, the initiative sought to increase the Constitution's word count by approximately 40%.
Thus, the No Crowd is arguing that Proposition 8 constitutes a revision rather than an amendment and should be tossed out because it was not approved by 2/3 of the Legislature before being submitted to the electorate.
Article 18 of the California Constitution provides authority for the California Constitution to be amended and revised.
Section 3 of Article 18 permits the "electors" to amend the constitution via initiative.
The only method provided in the Constitution by which it can be revised, however, is set forth in sections 1 and 2 of article XVIII which permit revision only by way of:
- a 2/3 vote of the Legislature to present the revision to the electorate for a vote; and
- a 2/3 vote of the Legislature to hold a constitutional convention and subsequent ratification by the people.
The Supremes, however, have given us some guidance. In Livermore v. Waite, 102 Cal. 113 (1894) the Court said that an "amendment implies such an addition or change within the lines of the original instrument as will effect an improvement, or better carry out the purpose for which it is framed." (102 Cal. at 119.) A revision, on the other hand, is:
an enactment which is so extensive in its provisions as to change directly the "substantial entirety" of the Constitution by the deletion or alteration of numerous existing provisions...[but] even a relatively simple enactment may accomplish such far reaching changes in the nature of our basic governmental plan as to amount to a revision also.(Amador Valley Joint Union High School District v. State Bd. of Equalization, 22 Cal.3d 208, 223 (1978).)
In the instances when the California Supreme Court has found a law to be a revision rather than an amendment, however, the law generally included multiple new laws. For example, in McFadden v. Jordan, 32 Cal. 2d 330 (1948) the initiative at issue actually proposed to add a new Article which consisted of 12 separate sections divided into some 208 subsections set forth in more than 21,000 words. At that time, the California Constitution only had 55,000 words. So, the initiative sought to increase the Constitution's word count by approximately 40%.
Thus, the No Crowd is arguing that Proposition 8 constitutes a revision rather than an amendment and should be tossed out because it was not approved by 2/3 of the Legislature before being submitted to the electorate.
Election Update #3
The latest numbers on Proposition 8 are 6,134,564 votes in favor (or 52.2%) and 5,627,403 votes against (or 47.8%).
Ballots are still being counted and counties have until early December to certify the election.
Ballots are still being counted and counties have until early December to certify the election.
Leviathan's Role in Creating the Same Sex Marriage Problem
This is a very interesting perspective on the same sex marriage issue and the problems associated with it. It was written just after the Cal Supremes overturned Proposition 22.
This is the real issue: Why does ANYONE require a State-Issued license, blood test and fee in order to have a religious ceremony for the purpose of promising to spend their lives together? Why is there a group of subsidies and tax breaks in place for the benefit of people who chose to partake in this life choice? Why is there a Government in existence with the power to make such laws and decisions and then set them in such a way that we end up with a contentious issue that so divides us and creates such resentment and intolerance?
This entire issue and all its side effects are the fault of The State. The State set up certain subsidies for married couples. The State failed to make these subsidies and legal rights available to gay couples. The State allowed campaigns to be waged to “ban” gay marriage and The State allowed challenges to be brought before its judges who overturned the bans. The result? More resentment and dischord.
My point is, WITHOUT THE STATE, WE WOULD NOT BE HAVING THIS ARGUMENT. People would be free to associate in any way that they so please without interference from clerks, judges, lawyers, legislators, or tax collectors. People could marry or not marry without having to consider the tax benefits or penalties associated with such a decision. The transferability of a retirement account or health plan would be negotiated between spouse and employer, and there would be no Leviathan to come around and steal 50% of it in the event of a spouse’s death.
It is genius, really, how The State has set us against each other in a way that acts to legitimize its almighty authority. You see, every time you get red in the face towards someone who disagrees with your position, you don’t win the argument. Neither does your opponent. The State wins, for you have been discussing how the Boss should treat his underlings when you should have been discussing nothing more than how free people should treat each other.
More here.
This is the real issue: Why does ANYONE require a State-Issued license, blood test and fee in order to have a religious ceremony for the purpose of promising to spend their lives together? Why is there a group of subsidies and tax breaks in place for the benefit of people who chose to partake in this life choice? Why is there a Government in existence with the power to make such laws and decisions and then set them in such a way that we end up with a contentious issue that so divides us and creates such resentment and intolerance?
This entire issue and all its side effects are the fault of The State. The State set up certain subsidies for married couples. The State failed to make these subsidies and legal rights available to gay couples. The State allowed campaigns to be waged to “ban” gay marriage and The State allowed challenges to be brought before its judges who overturned the bans. The result? More resentment and dischord.
My point is, WITHOUT THE STATE, WE WOULD NOT BE HAVING THIS ARGUMENT. People would be free to associate in any way that they so please without interference from clerks, judges, lawyers, legislators, or tax collectors. People could marry or not marry without having to consider the tax benefits or penalties associated with such a decision. The transferability of a retirement account or health plan would be negotiated between spouse and employer, and there would be no Leviathan to come around and steal 50% of it in the event of a spouse’s death.
It is genius, really, how The State has set us against each other in a way that acts to legitimize its almighty authority. You see, every time you get red in the face towards someone who disagrees with your position, you don’t win the argument. Neither does your opponent. The State wins, for you have been discussing how the Boss should treat his underlings when you should have been discussing nothing more than how free people should treat each other.
More here.
NYC Prop 8 Protest
With so many clever chants I was expecting them to say "2, 4, 6, 8 what don't we appreciate...Prop 8. Woo Hoo!"
Mean Religion Haters
I think these photos capture the attitude of the No Crowd pretty well. [Pictures taken at the protest at the LDS NYC Temple.]
Surprise Surprise, L.A. County Joins Legal Challenge
The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors voted this afternoon to join a lawsuit filed by the City of Los Angeles, San Francisco and Santa Clara County challenging the constitutionality of Proposition 8, the anti-gay marriage initiative voters passed by a narrow margin this month.
The vote was carried by the board’s three Democrats: Supervisors Gloria Molina and Zev Yaroslavsky, who proposed the board join the lawsuit, and Supervisor Yvonne B. Burke, who voted in support.
More here.
They've Always Been Angry
From the L.A. Times today:
"Many of those organizing the protests this week say they are voicing a sense of outrage and disappointment that California voters approved a measure that took away the right, granted by the California Supreme Court last spring, of same-sex couples to marry."
Exactly, the No Crowd is fighting for an invented "right" because they have no natural or fundamental right to the state's endorsement of their relationship.
"Many of those organizing the protests this week say they are voicing a sense of outrage and disappointment that California voters approved a measure that took away the right, granted by the California Supreme Court last spring, of same-sex couples to marry."
Exactly, the No Crowd is fighting for an invented "right" because they have no natural or fundamental right to the state's endorsement of their relationship.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Statement of Ron Prentice, Chairman, ProtectMarriage.com – Yes on 8
Statement of Ron Prentice, Chairman, ProtectMarriage.com – Yes on 8
“In last Tuesday’s election, the people of California placed the traditional definition of marriage into the state Constitution. This victory would not have been possible without the support of our 70,000 contributors and over 100,000 dedicated volunteers. It was accomplished with the strong participation of about 80% of California voters, or nearly 14 million people participating in this expression of the People’s will. It is the same process that resulted in the historic election of Barack Obama as President of the United States – with about the same percentage of the national vote as received by Proposition 8 in California.
“Since Proposition 8’s victory, a series of protests against churches, small businesses and individual supporters of traditional marriage have taken place in cities across the state. Tragically, some opponents of Prop. 8 who claim to cherish tolerance and civil rights are unabashedly trampling on the rights of others. Protests and boycotts have taken place against a Hispanic restaurant owner in Los Angeles, African American religious leaders in the Bay Area, and a musical theater director in Sacramento, among many others.
“As a diverse group representing many cultural backgrounds, our coalition stands together in solidarity with those whose property and rights are being attacked for the simple act of supporting traditional marriage. No matter your opinion of Proposition 8, we should all agree that it is wrong to intimidate and harass churches, businesses and individuals for participating in the democratic process. We call on our governmental leaders to urge all citizens to respect the rights of everyone to express their views on marriage without fear of reprisal and recrimination.
“ProtectMarriage.com also wants you to know that a strong legal defense of Proposition 8 is being prepared. We anticipated that Prop 8’s passage would result in advocates of same-sex marriage turning to the courts to attempt to overturn the People’s affirmation of traditional marriage as a societal good. We will be announcing our legal strategy next week, but rest assured that we will vigorously defend the People’s will to enshrine traditional marriage in the state Constitution.
“We are extremely grateful to the 5.7 million voters who stood up to support traditional marriage, and to all those who gave generously of their time and resources to protect the institution of marriage. We look forward to continuing to work with you to protect marriage in California and ensure that the People’s vote is respected.”
© 2008 ProtectMarriage.com. All Rights Reserved. ProtectMarriage.com is a project of California Renewal (I.D. #1302592) | Contact Us
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
