California Legislature Violates Separation of Powers, Passes Anti-Prop 8 Resolutions

sad_day_at_the_capitol

This update just came screaming down the wires from Karen England at the Capitol….

California Legislature Violates Separation of Powers, Passes Anti-Prop 8 Resolutions

Moments ago the Assembly and Senate passed resolutions stating their opposition to Proposition 8.

Both houses of the state legislature are trying to go on record opposing Proposition 8 prior to the California Supreme Court‘s hearing of the lawsuits against Proposition 8 on Thursday. In lengthy floor debates, Democrats passed HR 5 (Ammiano) and SR 7 (Leno), which express the opinion of the legislature that Proposition 8 was an unconstitutional revision and must be ruled invalid. However, the legislature’s passage of HR 5 and SR 7 violates the separation of powers doctrine which clearly instructs the legislature to refrain from influencing the judicial process, particularly pending legal cases.

Many Democrats rose to speak out against Proposition 8, even those from districts that clearly voted in favor of Proposition 8. “How arrogant for these lawmakers to express their personal opposition to Proposition 8 and try to persuade the court when their constituents voted in favor of traditional marriage,” stated Karen England, executive director of Capitol Resource Institute.

Assemblyman Van Tran eloquently pointed out that HR 5 is an attempt to “retroactively disenfranchise the votes of over 7 million voters” who passed Proposition 8. He explained that HR 5 is also an “illegal ex parte communication with the court.” Tran went on to chastise the Democrats for seeking to unduly influence the judicial review of Proposition 8 after the people had voted, and the legislature is politicizing the judicial process just a few days before the hearing.

Republican assemblymen Chuck DeVore, Ted Gaines, Joel Anderson, Steve Knight, Mike Villines and Dan Logue all rose to speak out against HR 5 and affirm the people’s right to pass Proposition 8.

Joel Anderson called on this fellow lawmakers to refrain from interpreting the law in the legislature, leaving that constitutional duty to the judicial branch.

http://www.capitolresource.org

Open Letter Response to Senator Leno and SR7

california-seal-gold

Senator Leno,

In a recent letter to one of your constituents, you made a case for the reasoning behind authoring SR7 in direct violation of the public’s trust.  With all due respect, your office has some explaining to do to the Republic of California, for betraying that trust.  Our Constitution, which you are sworn to protect and uphold begins with this opening statement:

“We, the People of the State of California, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure and perpetuate its blessings, do establish this Constitution.”

Our Constitution was established by the people of California.  The Legislature was established by the people of California, as was the Governorship and the Judiciary.  This government was entirely established by the people, and as the Constitution itself states:

“All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for their protection, security, and benefit, and they have the right to alter or reform it when the public good may require.”

Your duty and honor as an elected member of the Legislative body is to act as an agent for the voice of the people.  You are trusted with the responsibility not only to enact law on behalf of the people, but to also respect law duly enacted by the voice of the people, yet you, in connection with your cohorts in the Legislature, have instead continued to seek to thwart the will of the people, while unscrupulously claiming to uphold it.   In your letter, you wrote that proposition 8 was

“…a structural change to the Constitution, rather than an amendment…”

yet you know full well that a revision requires a “substantial change” to the “underlying principles” of the entire constitution.  Applying the historic definition for marriage to all citizens equally constitutes a valid amendment.  Article 2, Section 8 of the state Constitution clearly sets forth the initiative process as a valid means of amending the Constitution. Codifying the definition of marriage via Proposition 8 was a proper amendment to our state Constitution.

Proposition 8, which supports marriage for all legal adults regardless of distinction, grants access to the institution of marriage for all citizens equally, yet you write that Proposition 8 is not an equal law, but seeks to:

“…eliminate the fundamental right of marriage for a particular minority group on the basis of a suspect classification – sexual orientation….”

This twisted and divisive language attempts to inflame raw emotion rather than expose actual truth.  The definition of marriage is applied to all citizens, regardless of race, color or any other division.  Just as same-sex individuals may not call their relationship marriage, so heterosexuals may not engage in polygamous relationships and call them marriage.  There has never been a fundamental right to change the definition of any word, including marriage.

Claiming that proposition 8 violates, rather than upholds “Equal Protection” for all citizens, you wrote that it

…would substantially alter our basic governmental plan by eliminating equal protection as a structural check on the exercise of majority power…by permitting majorities to force groups defined by suspect classifications to fight to protect their fundamental rights under the California Constitution…”

You imply that some minority is under attack, yet you know that Proposition 8’s amendment applies the definition of marriage equally, to heterosexuals, homosexuals, bisexuals and all legal adults.  All groups have equal access to marriage regardless of sexual orientation.

To be clear:  ANY adult in California can be married regardless of sexual orientation. NO adult in California may call a relationship marriage unless it is an exclusive relationship with another adult of the opposite sex who is not a close relative. Defining marriage does not exclude any group of people, it applies equally for all groups.

Equal Protection under the Constitution requires laws be applied regardless of an individual’s characteristics or situation, just as justice is administered blindly.  A modification of the definition of the word marriage to include the actions of one special interest group subverts the idea of equal protection.   Proposition 8 as it is written is actually the perfect example of a law that applies equally to all citizens.

In this case, you have not only failed to uphold your oath to the people and the people’s Constitution, but your actions have gone beyond your jurisdiction to even encourage other branches of the government to act in collusion with you in order to thwart the twice declared will of the people.  You write that your proposed resolution (SR7) would:

“…put the Senate on record that Proposition 8 did not follow the proper process and should be overturned as an invalid revision to the California Constitution. SR 7 would safeguard the integrity of our constitutionally required checks and balances…”

Far from safeguarding the integrity of our system, in a clear violation of the separation of powers, you are asking the Legislature to tell the Judiciary how to rule.  Is attempting to influence the Judiciary “proper process” Senator?  This is not in support of the separation of powers, it is in direct violation of the separation of powers; powers given to you by the very people you seek to forcefully disenfranchise with this bill.

This effort is a slap in the face of millions of California’s citizens.  Democracy is watching, Senator.

Using this issue to inflame divisions in our state for your own political benefit, witnesses to your closing remarks in the SR7 hearing reported that you went so far as to liken your state’s voters to Germans who supported the Nazi regime prior to World War II!

“It is stunning to hear a California senator compare good, decent Californians to Nazis,” stated Karen England, President of Capitol Resource Institute, who was present at the hearing. “How dare an arrogant senator compare the political battle over homosexual marriage to the horrors of Nazi Germany. Senator Leno should apologize to the millions of voters who supported Proposition 8. And he should stop using such inflammatory, hateful language.

Proposition 8 promotes clarity and equality as a valid constitutional amendment, duly voted in according to law and democratic process.  It is not a sleight of hand or twist of semantics aimed at any one group, major or minor.  It is an explicit affirmation of marriage as an institution, equally applicable to all Californians regardless of distinctions.

We as Californians are outraged that our lawmakers continue to muddy the issues with inflammatory and inaccurate dramatics, crafted to enrage, divide, and subvert the people’s will in choosing how they are governed.  We call on you and all other esteemed lawmakers entrusted with governing our great state, to uphold and support the law of the people.

With All Sincerity,

The People of California

Vote Stomp Leno Attempts to Validate Violating the Public Trust

california_vote_stomped

Senator Leno and his cohorts in the California State Legislature have some explaining to do.  Here’s their first attempt.  This letter was sent to a friend of mine (*name has been changed for privacy):

Hi California Voters*,

I hope this information helps clarify why Senator Leno is moving forward with his resolution SR7.

BACKGROUND

The California Legislature made history in 2005 by passing the first bill in the United States that would allow same-sex couples to obtain civil marriage licenses. The Legislature passed a nearly identical bill again in 2007. Both measures were vetoed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.

In a May 2008 decision relying heavily on California’s legislative history relating to marriage for same-sex couples, the California Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional to deny same-sex couples the fundamental right to marriage and struck down California’s law limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples. Following the Court’s landmark decision approximately 18,000 same-sex couples wed in California. The historic “Summer of Love” following the Court’s ruling captured international attention and encouraged other states, such as Connecticut and New York, to follow suit in allowing or recognizing marriage for same-sex couples.

So California Voters, in response to our discussion, the CA Supreme Court already ruled that denying same sex couples the right to marry was unconstitutional. So opponents to this said, “Ok then, I guess we will just change the constitution.” That’s when the initiative process began… a whole different issue…

In February of 2008, out-of-state extremist organizations began circulating petitions to place a discriminatory marriage measure on California’s November ballot. What later qualified as Proposition 8 sought to permanently enshrine discrimination into the California Constitution. Civil rights groups quickly filed suit with the California Supreme Court in the case of Bennett v. Bowen, arguing that Prop 8 should not move forward for a popular vote without going to the Legislature first because it was a revision, or structural change to the Constitution, rather than an amendment. The Court declined to hear the case.

So the court never ruled on the issue of whether it was a revision or amendment because they argued that it was too early to bring the case to the court. The court doesn’t rule on hypothetical laws. If they did, and it didn’t pass, all of that work would be for nothing. So they said, “come back to us if it passes.”

And that’s exactly what we’re doing in the Resolution….

On November 4, 2008 Prop 8 passed by a narrow 52 percent margin. Civil rights organizations again filed suit with the California Supreme Court, asking that it overturn the initiative as an invalid revision. The Court accepted review of the case and could rule as early as June 2009. California Attorney General Jerry Brown recently filed his brief in the litigation on behalf of the state, arguing that he could not defend Prop 8 as it is in direct conflict with the guarantees of liberty and privacy contained in the Constitution.

So the court kept their promise, and they will rule on whether it is a revision or amendment in June.

PROPOSITION 8 WAS AN IMPROPER REVISION

Article XVIII of the California Constitution provides that while an amendment to the Constitution can be accomplished through the initiative process, a revision must originate in the Legislature and must be approved by a two-thirds vote before being submitted to the electorate.

In addition, Article III of the California Constitution establishes separation of powers between the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government and a system of checks and balances. Under Article III, the courts have the ultimate authority to interpret and enforce the principle of equal protection, and the Legislature has a crucial deliberative role in any proposed revision of our Constitution.

Proposition 8 seeks to eliminate the fundamental right of marriage for a particular minority group on the basis of a suspect classification – sexual orientation – while permitting the majority to retain that fundamental right. The initiative would substantially alter our basic governmental plan by eliminating equal protection as a structural check on the exercise of majority power and by permitting majorities to force groups defined by suspect classifications to fight to protect their fundamental rights under the California Constitution at every election. As such, Proposition 8 is an improper revision, sidestepping the constitutionally required rigors of the legislative process and depriving the Legislature of its role to examine and debate such a significant change to the principles and structure that underlie the California Constitution.

WHAT THIS RESOLUTION WOULD DO

Senate Resolution 7 would specify that significant revisions to the Constitution mandate distinct procedures and require a two-thirds vote of each house of the Legislature before going to the voters. It would put the Senate on record that Proposition 8 did not follow the proper process and should be overturned as an invalid revision to the California Constitution. SR 7 would safeguard the integrity of our constitutionally required checks and balances and help to ensure that minority rights are not stripped away at the ballot box by a simple vote of the majority.

Our Resolution does not say how the Court should rule, it just says that it is the opinion of the legislature that their authority to vote by 2/3 of each house was denied. We agree that you can revise the constitution, you just have to do it in the proper way. The process that everyone else has had to follow. If voters feel so strongly about this, they shouldn’t have a problem getting their representative to support this.

I hope this information helps,

(staffer)

Somehow just seeing all that twisted rhetoric pinned down to one sheet of paper just makes me want to get out my red pen.  Don’t you agree?  Ok, so that is their argument, let’s poke some holes in it.  Open Thread!  Let the rebuttals begin!

—Beetle Blogger

SR7 Passes Committee on 3-2 Party Line Vote

california_voted

Proposition 8 Under Attack by California Legislators

The California Senate Judiciary Committee passed SR 7 this afternoon, expressing their opposition to Proposition 8’s lawful passage. Following the Assembly Judiciary Committee’s passage of the identical HR 5 last Tuesday, the senate committee approved SR 7 on a party line vote of 3-2.

“This is another slap in the face of millions of California citizens,” stated Karen England, executive director of Capitol Resource Family Impact. “The legislature completely disregards the will of the people by calling on the state supreme court to overturn Proposition 8.” England testified against SR 7 in the committee hearing this afternoon. “As I shared with the committee members, Proposition 8 is a valid amendment to the state constitution. To ignore the overwhelming support of citizens for traditional marriage proves just how out of touch lawmakers are with average citizens.”

Testifying with Karen England was an affiliate attorney from Pacific Justice Institute. On short notice, the legal organization was able to send their attorney who provided valuable testimony on the legality of Proposition 8.

Several organizations testified in favor of the resolution, including Alice Huffman, of the NAACP. Huffman likened the homosexual marriage issue to when the courts had “liberated” her people from suppression of the majority white race. “African Americans should be appalled that their race is being used to push a radical social agenda,” stated England. “We urge African Americans to contact the NAACP and find out why they have inserted themselves into the same-sex marriage debate.” Also testifying for the resolution was the ACLU, a professor from Loyola Marymont Law School, the California Nursing Association, Planned Parenthood, and a representative from Mayor Gavin Newsom’s office.

Committee member Senator Tom Harman did a wonderful job pointing out the hypocrisy of SR 7 supporters in calling on the Supreme Court to overturn Proposition 8. He questioned author Mark Leno about whether it violated the separation of powers to tell the court to rule the way the legislature encourages them to. Senator Dean Florez, who had historically supported traditional marriage in floor votes changed his position and voted in favor of the resolution. “Constituents in Senator Florez’s district need to call his office and find out why he has flip-flopped on this crucial issue,” commented England.

SR 7 supporters filled the committee room and England included in her comments to the committee that opponents were not given adequate notice to alert our side. Committee member Senator Mimi Walters responded that even though they weren’t present, her office’s phones have been ringing off the hook with calls from opponents to SR 7.

In his closing remarks to the committee, Senator Leno likened voters for Proposition 8 to Germans who supported the Nazi regime prior to World War II. “It is stunning to hear a California senator compare good, decent Californians to Nazis,” stated England. “How dare an arrogant senator compare the political battle over homosexual marriage to the horrors of Nazi Germany. Senator Leno should apologize to the millions of voters who supported Proposition 8. And he should stop using such inflammatory, hateful language.

“Californians should be outraged that their lawmakers continue to subvert our ability to pass laws via the initiative process. HR 5 and SR 7 are just the latest attempts to undermine the democratic process. It is lawmakers, not Proposition 8 supporters, who are violating the constitution with their political antics in these committee hearings.”

ACTION ITEMS:

It’s not too late!  The full vote will be in the next few days, possibly tomorrow! Call or Email Your representatives!  Find your reps here:

http://capwiz.com/capitolresource/directory/statedir.tt?state=CA&lvl=state

Contact Senator Florez and ask him why he wants the Supreme Court to overturn Proposition 8.
Dean Florez
Phone: 916 651 4016
Fax: 916 327 5989

Contact Alice Huffman about the NAACP’s active support on SR 7 and HR 5
Alice Huffman
916-498-1895

This information is from the Capitol Resource Institute who attended the SR7 hearing.

March 5th Hearing in San Francisco

Gay Marriage

The Assembly opposes Proposition 8 because it is an improper revision, not an amendment, of the California Constitution.” California House Resolution 8

See how the Oral Arguments went:

Prop 8 Oral Arguments: Reactions

Dear California Supporters of the Family,

State Supreme Court to Hear Arguments on Constitutionality of Prop 8!!!

On March 5th, 2009 the California Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on the constitutionality of Prop 8. The court will be hearing oral arguments in response to three cases challenging Prop 8.

Additionally, the passage of HR5 by the State Assembly, which states that, “The Assembly opposes Proposition 8 because it is an improper revision, not an amendment, of the California Constitution” is designed to undermine the will of the voters.   In addition to stating the Assembly’s opposition to the amendment, which was passed by the majority of voters, the resolution publicly encourages the Court to strike down Prop 8!  Don’t let the court erase your vote! Let you voice be heard by joining us in our support of the constitutionality of Prop 8 and protecting the family.

What You Can Do

Attend the Court hearing. It takes place on Thursday, March 5th, 2009 from 9 a.m. to 12 p.m. in Supreme Court Courtroom, Earl Warren Center, Fourth Floor, 350 McAllister Street, San Francisco. By attending you will send a visible signal to the committee members in support of the family.  Due to extremely limited seating oral arguments also will be broadcast in an overflow viewing auditorium in the Milton Marks Conference Center, Hiram J. Smith State Office Building, Lower Level, 455 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco.

Contact those committee members who voted in opposition to the will of the voters: Voted in opposition of Prop 8:
Dave Jones
Assemblymember.jones@assembly.ca.gov
Paul Krekorian Assemblymember.Krekorian@assembly.ca.gov
Ted W. Lieu Assemblymember.Lieu@assembly.ca.gov
William Monning Assemblymember.Monning@assembly.ca.gov
Mike Feuer (Chair) Assemblymember.Feuer@assembly.ca.go
Julia Brownley Assemblymember.Brownley@assembly.ca.gov
Noreen Evans Assemblymember.Evans@assembly.ca.gov

Contact your legislators asking them to vote no on HR 5 and SR 7!
Click her to find your assembly member
Click here to find your State senator

Click here for helpful talking points to use in your correspondence.

Please forward this to your friends and family members. We believe that through a grassroots movement, we can secure a safe future for families in our state.

—United Families California

105 Days After the Election…

We at Beetle Blogger have finally discovered WHY the Caliornia State Legislature has neglected to account for the state-wide majority vote of the people in support of Marriage.

They don’t know WE ALREADY VOTED!

hr5_letter3

Apparently, someone forgot to tell them the election happened already!

DID YOU CATCH THAT?

hr5_letter_detail

THE ULTIMATE VERDICT IS IN THE HANDS OF THE PEOPLE…UNLESS OF COURSE YOU DON’T LIKE THE OUTCOME…AND THEN YOU CAN JOIN THE DEMOCRATS IN OVERTURNING DEMOCRACY….

california_voted

Assembly Judiciary Committee Ignores California Voters

See Your Legislators Cancel Your Vote in this Video…

Ok Beetle Blogger readers, I’m back! We drove in from Sacramento just a few minutes ago…That’s a long drive from L.A.! One of my readers emailed me her account, so I’m going to post that first. This is from mommyspy:

“I am a proposition 8 supporter and I went to the HR5 hearing at the capitol this morning. I was there an hour early and barely got into the hearing room in the balcony section. I understand that the two overflow rooms were also filled and they set up a third overflow site in the basement cafeteria. It was obvious from the time I stepped onto the capitol block that EQCA (the San Francisco based organization to overturn prop 8) was well organized and was there en masse. They all wore big buttons to identify themselves and they had representatives at each sidewalk entrance, each elevator door, and each main walkway to assist people in finding the hearing room. It actually helped me a lot as I am unfamiliar with the layout of the capitol building. As I found my seat I realized how prepared EQCA was. In the actual hearing room I was definitely in the minority. The audience was about 90% EQCA members. Each of their “bussed in” attendees had a folder with copies of the resolutions, a talking points sheet, and lots of other good information so they could speak informatively and persuasively about their point of view. Their event was called LOBBY DAY and their website claims 2000 members registered for the event. The intent was to attend the hearings and then have their people meet with different assembly and senate members to lobby for their issue. The reality was that the legislature has been in lock down mode for several days because of the budget and didn’t have time or attention for talk about prop 8. The HR5 hearing was limited in time because the entire assembly was meeting to discuss the budget at noon. The hearing for the Senate resolution was canceled for the same reason.

The hearing started out in “rally mode” with the EQCA members intending to clap and shout and vocally support their point of view, but the judiciary committee chairman, Mike Feuer (D – Los Angeles) took a leadership role and made it clear that in the hearing room there would be no vocalizations and all speakers would be heard with respect. He did an excellent job of keeping order during the hearing.

The resolution was authored by rep Tom Ammiano (D-San Francisco). He said “This resolution speaks directly to the fundamental rights of same-sex couples to have equal protection under the Constitution. We are asking the California State Legislature to go on the record to not only support the repeal of Proposition 8 but to also support the basic rights of all Californians”.

Assemblymember Mike Feuer (D-Los Angeles), Chair of the Judiciary Committee stated, “Today, I am proud to join my colleagues in speaking out on the key civil rights issue of this generation. California’s most cherished principle – equal treatment under the law, which includes the right to marry – must remain enshrined in the California Constitution. If a simple majority vote is allowed to strip away rights from a group of individuals, no one’s fundamental rights are safe.”

The main point of the resolution is that proposition 8 is a revision of the California constitution in that it changes the underlying principles of the Constitution, namely, that of equal protection. As a result, pursuant to the California Constitution, the Legislature must initiate a change of this magnitude; it cannot be accomplished through the initiative process.

The impassioned speeches by the supporters made the point that “the rights of the minority cannot be voted away by a majority, and if they can, then the rights of all are at risk. The gay activists have effectively sidestepped the “we voted for this and won; the majority rule should be respected” issue and have re-directed the conversation to the oppressed minority rights issue.

During the hearing the floor was opened to comment from the audience. EQCA did a very good job of coming prepared with many passionate speakers from all over the state, many of them representatives of churches and community organizations. They also had speakers who had especially emotionally charged stories to tell about repression, family discrimination and children who were brought up in a same sex household without the respect of “married” parents.

I think the open floor took most Prop 8 supporters by surprise. The audience members who spoke in favor of proposition 8 spoke from the heart, but made only the single point that the majority rule should be respected.

One of the three republican committee members made a closing comment that it was ironic that the writers of the resolution, claiming improper separation of powers between the legislature and judiciary, would then proceed to attempt to improperly influence the court in its deliberations by passing a resolution against proposition 8.

My opinion on the whole proceeding? Proposition 8 supporters were out-organized, out-attended and out-argued today. Their argument about the majority voting away the rights of the minority is very persuasive. If some group passed a proposition that took away my right to go to church or raise my family as I saw fit, I would be just as passionate. Considering that the forum of discussion has changed to minority rights, it is ineffective to continue to argue the “we are the majority” point of view. The issue has now become, IS GAY MARRIAGE A RIGHT? During the closing comments by committee members, one of the co-sponsors of the resolution made a comment that was especially open to intelligent review. He spoke at length about how it was really all about LOVE and that anyone should be able to marry the one person they loved. Government has NO RIGHT to regulate our personal relationships. Ok, bloggers, lets run with that one.  (I did!  Let’s brush up on it and Repost!)

The Assembly Judiciary Committee approved H.R. 5 on a vote of 7-3, straight down party lines. The measure will now be transmitted to the Assembly Floor for approval. A similar measure, Senate Resolution 7, has been introduced by Senator Mark Leno (D-San Francisco). That measure resolves that the California State Senate also oppose Prop 8 on constitutional grounds. It will be heard in the Senate Judiciary Committee at a later date.

Here’s another account from one of the overflow rooms written by CatzPajamas:

So i went to this hearing. it passed, 7 to 3.  I’d planned to go to both, but they canceled the 2nd one for unknown reasons. probably so they could reschedule it at another obscure time when no one knows about it.

First off, one thing that really got on my nerves was that the groups of HR5 supporters that were there in the hearing were constantly heckling, rudely commenting and talking during ‘our’ presentations. the guy in charge had to keep interrupting (thus taking away from our presentation time) to tell them to pipe down. i didn’t hear a peep during theirs, our side was respectful, as usual. from the not just disrespectful but angry, obstinate, bitter, vengeful, bigotous muttering comments, expressions and actions of the gay community at this event and in the past, it is extremely obvious to me who ‘owns the hate’. opponents of the measure were, although definitely caught off guard and not nearly as prepared, were composed, matter-of-fact, and respectful of the other side.

Basically the people (majority) of California who voted to pass prop. 8 were painted as a group of ignorant hate-filled lying bigots and that ‘we, the representatives of this state’ have officially decided to step in and take the ‘mere majority vote’ and throw it out the window, because the people of California shouldn’t be able to vote and pass laws. there was a constant theme throughout the comments made by supporters of this measure. I heard ’simple majority vote, mere majority vote, bare majority vote, ’silly popularity contest’ and, my favorite, ‘this isn’t American idol’. They trampled the fact that millions of dollars, thousands of hours, and hundreds of thousands of votes, were spent on this campaign, twice, as if it didn’t matter, because ‘in their personal opinion prop 8 should not have passed’. since when do a few corrupt men blatantly override hundreds of thousands of people in a democracy and get away with it? where is the justice in this? are we so far gone in our system of government that our votes are now just a scam? just a ruse to make us feel like we have a say, unless of course some pawn in the governor’s mansion doesn’t like it??

After this one of the reps went on to say: “we are not required to represent WHO is in our district, we are voted in by our district to vote OUR OWN IDEAS…” he actually said that. i couldn’t believe it. so, you lie and cheat your way into the position, and instead of doing the job you were hired to do which is REPRESENT the people your district, you bend to special interest, radical groups and undermine the very people who put you in office?

This hearing was a scam and a laugh.They snuck it into the middle of a 3 day rally with thousands of gays and their supporters hounding the capital all weekend long, and kept this hearing a secret until just a few days ago, so the few people who were able to make it to try & argue *again* the issue of gay marriage, were barely able to get organized at all. basically the opponents of HR5 all said the same thing: the government is ignoring the majority of California, we voted TWO TIMES on this thing, please respect the people’s vote. We did it legally, and correctly.

Unhappy that the gays didn’t get their way in the election, they are still trying to undermine the people of this state by throwing their tantrums out in the halls and sneaking their way into getting what they want, and this panel of representatives was eating it up.

This hearing made it very clear to me how bent our representatives are on catering to the special interest groups, the contempt they have for anyone in any religion, how easily they ignore their duties and responsibilities, and how easily their eyes glaze over with disinterest at the judicial system set in place to keep groups like this in check. I’m thoroughly disgusted with this whole thing. anyone here read ‘animal farm’? these guys are the pigs.

D. Rolling Kearney was there as well:

“I was the next in line to go in and speak when they ran out of time.

… it should be noted that they were ALL from one group, complete with matching t-shirts and buttons, bused out there together, and they all represented ONE point of view from ONE group of people. Well, you want DIVERSITY? The rest of us drove out there in our own cars, from our own different walks of life (race, religion, non-religion, financial situation, etc), to share multiple points of view on a subject that brings us all together. Because this is wrong on so many levels, it would be a shame for us to let it get framed as a “tyranny of the majority,” when that has nothing to do with it.”

From FullWithFaith:

I, too was there — my office is near the capitol so I walked over in the rain.

…WE, as a grass roots organization in conjunction with our leaders (attorneys, spokesmen, etc) need to do a better job at working harder to be prepared. This comes after reading transcripts of the hearing before Judge Englund on disclosure of donor info. When the judge asked our side in court to cite the last time that they knew of any harassment occurring, our side, our attorneys remained silent. With all of the evidence out there, they clammed up and didn’t say a word. We can do better than this. Our families deserve better than this. The DNA as a grassroots model is a great way to organize….we just have to move beyond organization and into action.

As for my own account, ditto to all those above. I was astonished at how crass and rude the gay rights supporters were.  They had no respect for anyone but themselves.  I was also completely floored by the committee’s brazen nature in disregarding the constitution.  Nowhere does it say “love conquers all”.  If you call it love, you can have whatever you want? No, there’s something deeply wrong with that kind of subjective view, yet these are the people leading this state.  This kind of corrupt power is something you hear about all the time in politics, but seeing it first hand is something I will never forget.

Even though going in we knew the cards were stacked against us, it was important to participate.  From a quasi leadership point of view, this was a good dry run.  Here’s what I learned:

We obviously needed more organization and communication between the organizations.  This was my first attempt at being involved in the process.  Our effectiveness was derailed by lack of numbers, experience and logistics …going early but arriving late because of parking issues, not knowing the layout of the capitol building, and having our group split three ways between all the overflow rooms.  The communication could have been a hundred percent better.  Sunny weather would have been nice too…  The Capitol is a huge place, and moving through all the security to get in and out doesn’t make it easy to organize.  I saw many families there, people who I suspected might be with us, but because we had coats on, who knew what color our shirts were…I had a yellow shirt too, but I bet no one saw it.   Buttons would have been useful that way, some sort of identifier you could put on the outside of whatever you were wearing.  Foresight!  These are the sorts of things we’ll have to overcome in the future if we’re going to increase effectiveness.

I would also love to have a guerrilla handbook of all of our logic arguments and talking points so if we have to switch between “Democracy!” and “Civil Rights!” again, it’s all there to refresh our memories.  All in all, it was very worth it to be there.

We got skunked this time, but it was a good first run.  We’re learning and we”ll be better prepared next time!

–Beetle Blogger

California Rally This Tuesday!

california_voted_republic_flag

Rally in Sacramento!  Protect the Vote!

The Digital Network Army, United Families International and Capital Resource Institute are joining forces this Tuesday to rally for families at the Capitol Building in Sacramento.  Both state houses are drafting official resolutions condemning the passage of Proposition 8 and urging the Supreme Court to overturn the will of the people AGAIN.

Two statewide elections with the majority voices of millions were not loud enough to turn the heads of our representatives in Sacramento, so we’re bringing the voice of the people to Sacramento.  Come Rally with us for Marriage and Families!  Help remind the Senators and Assemblymen that we are watching…because there’s nothing more important to our nation than its families.

Protect Marriage!  Protect Families!  Protect Democracy!

If our representatives are going to turn their backs on the people who voted for them, let them do it to our faces in the light of the cameras, not in a silent corner.

—Beetle Blogger

Here is the latest update from the DNA:

Team,

Ok, so the most recent word is that the opposition is going to be busing people in from San Francisco for the hearings so seating at the actual hearing may be limited, come early. If you have kids, bring water bottles and a few snacks, comfortable shoes. Security is tight there, so remember, no pocket knives etc.

If we have more people come to the hearing than we can fit in the room, we’ll hold a concurrent rally outside the capitol building with a petition signing.  No body will be wasted!  Kids and families are welcome!  Come and be heard!  Wear your yellow shirt if you like!  If it rains, bring an umbrella, we’ll rally in the hallways!

Proposition 8 Hearings will be held in these rooms:

HR 5
Tuesday, February 17
10:30am
State Capitol
Room 4202

SR 7
Tuesday, February 17
12:30pm
State Capitol
Room 4203

More Information Here

California Prop 8 Rally at the Capital!

siren

Go!  Rally!  Bring Your Signs and Spread the Word!

This resolution would put the Assembly on record as supporting the repeal of Proposition 8 and declaring that the initiative was an improper revision to the California Constitution. -Equality California Website

Dear California Supporters of the Family,

State Assembly and Senate Considering Resolution Encouraging State Supreme Court to Overturn Prop 8!!!

SR7 and HR5

On Tuesday, February 17th at 10:30 am, The Assembly Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing followed at 12:30 pm by a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Proposition 8. The committees will be considering crafting a joint resolution encouraging the California State Supreme Court to overturn Prop 8. By issuing the resolution the Assembly will officially express its opposition to Proposition 8, calling for its repeal, and stating that it was an “improper revision” to the state constitution.

Read HR5 and Read SR7

Passing these resolutions flies in the face of the will of the voters.  Prop 8, was passed by a clear majority of California voters in November 2008. Fifty-two percent of California voters stood up to protect the family, which is the lynch pin of civilization. William Glaston, a former policy advisor to President Clinton, is quoted in the UFI Marriage Advantage Family Guide. He states, “Marriage is an important social good, associated with an impressively broad array of positive outcomes for children and adults alike….Whether American society succeeds or fails in building a healthy marriage culture is clearly a matter of legitimate public concern.”

Don’t let the Assembly take your vote away. Join us in protecting marriage, children and the future of family and our society.

california_voted


What You Can Do

DOT.jpg Attend the hearing. It is taking place Tuesday, February 17th at the state capitol in Sacramento. The Assembly hearing will be in room 4202 at 10:30 am. The Senate hearing will be in room 4203 at 12:30pm. We encourage you to make the trip. By attending you will send a visible signal to the committee members in support of the family. To get driving directions and parking information follow the click on the links below:

For directions
For parking information

DOT.jpg Call the members of the committees and fax letters asking them to vote no on HR5 and SR7
Assembly Judiciary Committee-Vote NO on HR5

Assembly Judiciary Committee-Vote NO on HR5

Committee Members District Phone E-mail

Dem-42 (916) 319-2042 Assemblymember.Feuer@assembly.ca.gov

Rep-68 (916) 319-2068 Assemblymember.tran@assembly.ca.gov

Dem-41 (916) 319-2041 Assemblymember.Brownley@assembly.ca.gov

Dem-7 (916) 319-2007 Assemblymember.Evans@assembly.ca.gov

Dem-9 (916) 319-2009 Assemblymember.jones@assembly.ca.gov

Rep-36 (916) 319-2036 Assemblymember.Knight@assembly.ca.gov

Dem-43 (916) 319-2043 Assemblymember.Krekorian@assembly.ca.gov

Dem-53 (916) 319-2053 Assemblymember.Lieu@assembly.ca.gov

Dem-27 (916) 319-2027 Assemblymember.Monning@assembly.ca.gov

Rep-2 (916) 319-2002 Assemblymember.Nielsen@assembly.ca.gov

Senate Judiciary Committee-Vote NO on SR7

Ellen Corbett
Phone: 916 651 4010
Fax: 916 327 2433

Dean Florez
Phone: 916 651 4016
Fax: 916 327 5989

Tom Harman
Phone: 916 651 4035
Fax: 916 445 9263

Mark Leno
Phone: 916 651 4003

Mimi Walters
Phone: 916 651 4033
Fax: 916 445 9754

Please forward this to your friends and family members. We believe that through a grassroots movement, we can secure a safe future for families in our state.

United Families California

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.