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.



  1. rubyeliot said,

    February 24, 2009 at 11:15 pm

    I just called and told his secretary that I want him to call me back.

  2. ashley said,

    February 25, 2009 at 12:15 am

    I called a few people. When I called Florez, it went to his secretary too.

    I was surprised because she started debating with me…it was a good discussion.

    I asked: How does Proposition 8 violate Equal Protection when it applies equally to all citizens?

    She said it didn’t apply to gay people wanting to get married.

    I reminded her that everyone in CA can get married to someone of the opposite sex as long as they are not a relative.

    She said as a society we’ve decided incestuous marriage is wrong, like how we’ve decided it’s wrong to rob a bank.

    When I asked why it wasn’t okay to decide as a society that same-gender marriage is also inappropriate, she said, the point of this bill is to argue that prop 8 was a revision rather than an amendment.

    Good times, Good times.

  3. February 25, 2009 at 12:36 am

    […] See Beetle Babee: SR7 Passes Committee on 3-2 Party Line Vote […]

  4. beetlebabee said,

    February 25, 2009 at 12:37 am

    Ashley! Score for you!

  5. February 25, 2009 at 2:59 am

    What the…?!? I would’ve been there had I known. Sorry guys. I just emailed my Rep. I think we’ll be there in S.F. next week, though. Let’s do a meetup.

    Also, I still think we should organize some “talking points” and make sure everyone gets a copy, so if any of us get in we can make sure the important things get said.

  6. beetlebabee said,

    February 25, 2009 at 7:45 am

    Yeah, they kind of did a number on us this time, very very short notice.

  7. Dana said,

    February 25, 2009 at 8:00 pm

    I called my Mimi Walters office today to give her a an 8th grade lesson on constitutional democracy. Ashley, Beetelebabee I think god will make good use of you as firewood in hell some day. In the mean time you keep the neo-nazi movement alive in this world.

  8. beetlebabee said,

    February 25, 2009 at 8:26 pm

    Dana, if you want to talk issues, let’s talk issues, really. I love a good debate, but please, keep your emotional railings devoid of fact separate from this discussion.

  9. February 26, 2009 at 11:21 pm

    Dana brings up a recent development that you will begin to notice among the Left, especially from the Obama administration lately: extreme name-calling. Liberalism has never been about facts; it has always been about emotion. That is why they target high-schoolers and college students whose brains have not yet fully developed. Remember Obama during the campaign: “I want you to get in their faces, and I want you to argue with ’em!” Notice he didn’t suggest a discussion of facts. Nor did Gavin Newsom. It’s all about getting people riled up, whether or not the issue is real.

  10. D. Mills said,

    March 23, 2009 at 8:28 am

    As a voting plurality, African Americans exist and have done in much larger proportional numbers than homosexuals… Their ability to bring their issues to a vote and gain rights from the majority is in part a product of this… The black civil rights movement has benefitted in the past from its ability to amass enourmous numbers of street ready protestors to put a public face on their needs… To many, gays remain a shadowy and poorly understood minority that are vaguely discomforting in their sexual ambiguity… The problem in assigning the majority the job of thumbs up or down to according marital rights is that the majority are quite misinformed about the basic issues… The hetero majority is fraught with beliefs such as the idea that gayness is some kind of choice that an individual makes or that it is about a disbelief in particular religious dogma… In fact, gayness is observed widely among many animal species, and among humans it is a historic fact of life going far back in history and practiced by individuals of exceptional intelligence and reknown depite its apparent social incongruity… This is because these individuals… Like all homos, had a mismatch between limbic brain programming and their more external physical parts… Nature ain’t perfect – as we all know…
    So – the consequences as a political matter is that this deviation exists as only a small voting proportion generally… In school children are often taught by their peers to humiliate and berate the effeminate boy – or masculine girl… In church some sects refer to them as in violation of cannon by their sexuality… In the military they have been routinely discharged and imprisoned in the past… A few ill guided individuals work to “convert” them – a process so ineffective that it frequently results either in permanent celibacy or suicide… Meanwhile social integration of gays with straights is still very much a work in progress… By numbers – they are still a small population fragment – petitioning for what the majority has always taken for granted … An uphill battle to be sure. and one that will no doubt be around as long as people cannot visit spouses in the hospital; ride in the ambulance; share tax benefits; apply for shared medical discounts; or pass inheritances to children normally… Meanwhile the shadowy minority successfully raises families, attend some churches, and work or live in the same businesses and streets as a mostly oblivious majority… They are barely noticed by many and create no net threat by their petitioning…

  11. beetlebabee said,

    March 23, 2009 at 2:19 pm

    D. Mills, I think the activist gay community rather than being a shadowy, shy minority, has proven itself to be just the opposite. They are quite capable of mass demonstrations and violence. In state after state, these activists are steadily changing laws for their own agenda, against the best interests of children and families. The question of homosexuality is separate from the question of marriage. This site mainly deals with marriage issues, but if you’d like to talk about homosexuality, we can. Let’s just be clear that the two are separate issues.

    Homosexuality is what it is, whether chosen, learned or developed. No one forces anyone to live a homosexual lifestyle. That is always a choice. While the feelings or tendencies may not be a choice in the more severe cases, there is always the choice of whether or not to act on those impulses, just as there is with alcoholism or smoking.

    The fact that same sex oriented people exist in the population has no bearing on marriage law. That is what at issue in California and many other states. Studies repeatedly show that the best environment for raising children is in a family with a mom and a dad, married and dedicated to each other for life. That’s what the argument is about. Families, children, society and posterity.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: