SR7 Passes Committee on 3-2 Party Line Vote


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.”


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:

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

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

SR7 Committee Vote Today!


SR 7 encourages the State Supreme Court to overturn the vote of the people and reinstitute their prior ruling that legalized homosexual marriages. For more information go here


Ask them to VOTE NO on SR 7!!
Vote Can Happen Anytime After 1:00 pm on February 24, 2009!!

Senator’s Name Phone Email Address
Ellen Corbett, Chair (D) 916 651-4010
Tom Harman, Vice Chair (R) 916 651-4035
Dean Florez (D) 916 651-4016
Mark Leno (D) 916 651-4003
Mimi Walters (R) 916 651-4033

For Senate Judiciary Committee Members Websites and information please go to:

Vote No on SR7 and HR5!

When you call and speak with your representatives, here are some points from Capitol Resource Institute that can be used to challenge some of the confusion that exists out there about Proposition 8:

“Prop 8 Revises, Rather than Amends, the Constitution?”

• 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 the state Constitution.

“Undermines Equal Protection?”

• Equal Protection under the Constitution requires laws be applied regardless of an individual’s characteristics or situation, just as justice is administered blindly. Proposition 8’s amendment applies the definition of marriage equally, to heterosexuals, homosexuals, bisexuals and all legal adults. Proposition 8 is actually the perfect example of a law that applies equally to all citizens.

“Eliminates Fundamental Rights?”

• Proposition 8 does not eliminate a fundamental right for only minority groups. It places the restrictions of marriage on all citizens equally. Just as same-sex individuals may not marry, so heterosexuals may not engage in polygamous relationships. There is also no fundamental right to marriage. That “right” was created by the California Supreme Court when it overturned Proposition 22.

“Violates Separation of Powers Doctrine?”

• Proposition 8 and the initiative process do not “strip the courts” of their constitutional function. In fact, Proposition 8 was a direct response to the California Supreme Court’s violation of the separation of powers doctrine. By striking down a law passed via the constitutional initiative process, the Court overstepped its authority and usurped the powers of the legislative branch and the constitutional initiative process.

Questions to ask:

1. The resolution emphasizes the importance of the separation of powers doctrine, but doesn’t this resolution violate the doctrine by directing the judicial branch’s decisions?

2. How does Proposition 8 violate Equal Protection when it applies equally to all citizens?

3. Why is the legislature spending money on this issue when we are in a budget crisis? We are using taxpayer dollars to overturn an initiative they just passed.

4. Aren’t we defying the separation of powers by even debating this issue when the court will be hearing it next month?

Sean Penn and the Historical Significance of the Marriage Debate

photo by Lee Nachtigal

photo by Lee Nachtigal

The Great Marriage Debate from a Bigger Pool of Thought

Sean Penn is beautiful isn’t he?  Unfortunately, as with many celebrities (Tom Hanks anyone?) the beauty doesn’t extend further than skin deep.

In a moment of self aggrandizement during the recent Academy Awards, Sean took the opportunity to opine on world events as he condescendingly scolded supporters of Proposition 8  saying:

“I think that it is a good time for those who voted for the ban against gay marriage to sit and reflect and anticipate their great shame and the shame in their grandchildren’s eyes if they continue that way of support. We’ve got to have equal rights for everyone.”

Shame?  from this haughty little fish with a myopic view of the world?  How presumptuous and small!  While he may claim omniscience in his realm, the rest of us are under no such delusion.  Thank goodness the world is not run by the make-believe of Hollywood!

Unlike television dramas, carefully crafted story lines and dreamed up plots that often divorce actions from natural consequences, history is much less forgiving.  What we choose today will have consequences for our nation, as they have for other nations.

Ashamed?  I think not.  In fact, just the opposite.  I am an eager participant and witness to every event, every effort, every milestone of this great debate, because I believe that on this debate hangs much of the future of this nation. History will be written and judged by those who live the future we’re creating today.  The great marriage debate is about the future of this nation because it’s about the future of families.

Amid gay activists efforts to selfishly demand “special rights”, I stood and fought with millions of other Californians to declare my vote in support of children and family.  This isn’t about the self gratification and sexual desires of adults.  Children’s rights trump adult sexual preference, because gender matters and every child has the right to a mom and a dad.  California voted! and cut through the slick emotional rhetoric to come to the aid of it’s children.

California is the first state to throw back the efforts of a corrupt judiciary to force gay “marriage” on our state, endangering religious freedom, education and children’s rights in the process.  Proposition 8 was a historic victory.  Now we are the first to have that vote put to the test.

All eyes are on California as this battle continues.

Last week I attended the emotionally overwrought HR5 hearings and saw first hand a crowd of people, obsessed with their own personal wants, assist in trying to have their wants trump democracy in our State’s Capital.  I saw with my eyes the disdain of those legislators for the very voters that gave them the power they now abuse.

Why?  They said it was all for “love”, but I have to ask…. Love of whom?

There are people in this world driven by unhealthy and out of balance emotional needs and wants.  They want what they want, when they want it and they are hoping to get it regardless of the consequences to children, freedoms or democracy.  We are witnesses to that willingness to cast everything to the wind for “love”.

I saw it in the post election riots as decency and respect of property was cast aside for “love”.  I saw it again as the proponents of this “love” castigated, harassed, and persecuted individuals— mapping their homes, and publishing their personal information in order to threaten and intimidate.  Ultimately, some marriage supporters lost their livelihoods due to the persecution.  More recently I saw it in the HR5 hearings, as democracy was cast away, and the voice of the people stifled.  All for “love”?  Please.  Let’s call it what it is.  It’s not about love, it’s about choice, my choice, my needs, my wants above all else…. as Mayor Newsom gleefully proclaimed:

“Whether you like it or not.”

I will be attending the March 5th State Supreme Court hearings on this issue.  I want to be there in person, not viewing the chopped and clipped product pedaled through tainted media’s eyes.  I want to see with my own eyes and witness that experience so I can tell my children, and my children’s children how the fight for family was either won or lost in California.

When my children ask me, “Mama!  Were you there?”  I will be able to answer them— Yes!  I was there, and I fought for family.

This issue is already making waves in the national pond and beyond.  As California goes, so goes the nation, and as the nation goes, so goes the world.

Be educated.  Make a stand based on the facts of the issues.  What we do here will matter for generations to come.

—Beetle Blogger

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
Paul Krekorian
Ted W. Lieu
William Monning
Mike Feuer (Chair)
Julia Brownley
Noreen Evans

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