Judge Walker is Gay? Proposition 8 Case Ruling Impartiality in Question

The San Francisco Chronicle is reporting that the judge presiding over the Proposition 8 appeal, Judge Vaughn Walker, is gay:

“The biggest open secret in the landmark trial over same-sex marriage being heard in San Francisco is that the federal judge who will decide the case, Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, is himself gay.

Many gay politicians in San Francisco and lawyers who have had dealings with Walker say the 65-year-old jurist, appointed to the bench by President George H.W. Bush in 1989, has never taken pains to disguise – or advertise – his orientation.”

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/02/07/BACF1BT7ON.DTL#ixzz0exke4PWC

If that is true, it would explain a lot.  Why was Judge Walker so eager to break federal court rules against televising hearings?  Why was he so eager to deny the defense their first amendment rights by trying to force them to disclose private campaign documents?

Twice now, higher courts have had to intervene in Judge Walker’s court proceedings to check his enthusiasm for tipping the scales of justice.

Could Judge Walker being gay himself have any bearing on his decisions?  We’ll never know.  As one commenter on this story said:

“He should have recused himself, just to avoid the image of impropriety. As it is, people will always wonder, and assume he made those bad judgments out of an inappropriate personal bias.”

Certainly a judge’s personal life and choices do not HAVE to interfere with his impartiality, however it certainly does color the appearance of his decision.

History will always question his judgment and wonder.  No matter what side of the issue you fall on, this information does nothing but cast doubt on the legitimacy of this court and its proceedings.

—Beetle Blogger

Perry v Schwarzenegger: Religion, Family, Democracy— On Trial

Photo: Norman Rockwell–Freedom of Worship

Religion, Family, Democracy— On Trial

The endless parade has come to a halt.  Painfully, yet colorfully, we’ve all watched the emotional train wreck unfold over these last several weeks.  Here and there bits of sanity reigned, but by and large raw, pity driven emotion ran the day.

Thankfully all binge parties must have an end and this one is no exception.  Finally, Judge Vaughn Walker’s courtroom theatrics and baldface shenanigans  have come to a close.  All that remains are 30 days of preparation, the final arguments and the ruling.

No matter which way Judge Walker rules, his feckless reign will not ultimately hold sway.  The fate of proposition 8 will end up in the hands of the United States Supreme Court; a judicial body, I might add, in which I have infinitely more faith.

Is there any question how Judge Walker will rule?  He’s made his bias clear every chance he got.  The better question is, what will the Supreme Court think of his antics?  Somehow I don’t imagine they will look kindly on the abuse and mockery Judge Walker has made of the judicial system, thumbing his nose at basic freedoms, federal judicial practice and common decency.  He may have won small points with the Oprah crowd, but the Supreme Court is not populated by Jerry Springer and Judge Judy. These are men and women who know the constitution, and the  intent of its creators to protect the rights and liberties of all men with regard to personal belief:

That religion, and the duty which we owe to our CREATOR,  and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore, that all men should enjoy the fullest toleration in the exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience, unpunished and unrestrained by the magistrate, unless, under colour of religion, any man disturb the peace, the happiness, or safety of society. And that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love and charity, towards each other.”  –James Madison, Virginia Declaration

The bottom line is no one has the right to put religion, family or democracy on trial.  These are freedoms and rights that are truly inalienable.  All men are equal.  No spurious claim to special rights can supersede the rights we all share in common.

—Beetle Blogger

See this from Ron Prentice, the executive director of protectmarriage.com.

The live testimony in the federal trial of Perry v Schwarzenegger, the historic court battle over the definition of marriage, finally came to a close yesterday afternoon.
Our lead trial attorney Charles Cooper and the rest of the Prop 8 Legal Defense Team did a superb job defending the will of the voters and the institution of marriage itself under extremely difficult circumstances in this San Francisco courtroom. As we consistently saw in most of the critical pre-trial rulings, virtually all of Judge Vaughn Walker’s significant rulings during the trial went against us.
For example, Judge Walker’s insistent efforts to broadcast the trial proceedings worldwide on the internet, in violation of federal laws, caused two-thirds of our expert witnesses to withdraw from the case just before the trial started. Quite understandably, these experts were fearful of the likely harassment and retribution they would suffer, personally and professionally, if their live testimony was broadcast worldwide as Judge Walker had ordered. As the trial started, the cameras were still rolling and there was no way to guarantee the witnesses that their testimony would not be broadcast. Even though the US Supreme Court later overruled Judge Walker and prohibited the broadcasting of this case, it was too late.
The loss of four witnesses put tremendous added pressure on our team of defense attorneys to find other ways to get our critical evidence into the record. So during over 30 hours of our cross-examination of the plaintiffs’ witnesses, our attorneys succeeded in moving key studies, statistics, reports and other evidence into the record, and obtaining critical concessions from the other side’s witnesses on many subjects, such as child-rearing and monogamy. Thankfully, our legal team was extremely successful in this regard.
After weeks of 20+ hour days, our attorneys finally were able to get a good night’s rest. We appreciate your prayers for them and your words of encouragement. Starting today, they will be working for the next 30 days to submit additional briefings to the judge. They will also start preparing to go back before Judge Walker sometime in March to present final closing arguments. And then we will await the court’s ruling.
No matter how Judge Walker rules, all sides agree that this is just the first stage in a much longer journey that will ultimately end at the U.S. Supreme Court. No matter which side wins this first legal test, the case is surely to be appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and eventually to the nine Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court.
Even though the live testimony has ended, we must continue our efforts to secure the resources needed for a strong legal defense of Prop 8. Please help us with your own contribution, and forward this email to your friends and colleagues who themselves might make a donation. Our outstanding legal bills are substantial and the ongoing fight will be expensive.
Every person involved in our legal defense has made tremendous sacrifices. Lead trial counsel Charles Cooper and his team from the Cooper & Kirk law firm have done a spectacular job. Special thanks is also due to the excellent attorneys of the Alliance Defense Fund who donated literally thousands of hours of legal work as part of the defense team.
In particular, we are also extremely grateful to our own General Counsel, Andy Pugno, whose wife is due to deliver their third child any day now. Not only has he worked tirelessly for months on end and represented us ably in the courtroom, his entire family has paid a price as Andy has been fighting for the institution of marriage. We owe him, and his family, a debt of gratitude.
Below is a statement Andy released to the media late yesterday about the case. It’s an excellent summary of how this show trial unfolded.
Today concluded the presentation of evidence in the federal trial, Perry v. Schwarzenegger, challenging Prop 8’s definition of marriage as only between a man and a woman. Our Prop 8 Legal Defense Team did a remarkable job in defending the will of over 7 million California voters who passed it into law.
What may be lost in all the sensationalism of the past two and a half weeks of trial is that the burden of proof to invalidate Prop 8 lies squarely with the plaintiffs. They cannot win unless they prove that the voters were “irrational” when they chose to preserve the traditional definition of marriage in our state. Contrary to their public relations claims, the outcome of this case does not depend on whether the Prop 8 sponsors can prove that homosexual marriage will harm traditional
marriage. The controlling legal issue is not whether homosexual marriage is good or bad, but rather whether the people have the right to decide what is best. The plaintiffs simply did not carry that burden.
Meanwhile, we have shown that limiting marriage to its longstanding definition is rational because marriage benefits children, not just the adults. Whenever possible, it is best for a child to have both a mother and a father. And man-woman marriage is the only human relationship that can biologically serve that distinctive purpose. A same-sex relationship can never offer a child both a
mother and father. It’s that simple.
The plaintiffs put on a spectacular show-trial of irrelevant evidence, calling to the stand many “expert” witnesses to testify that allowing homosexual marriage would: help local governments raise more tax revenues, help gay and lesbian couples to accumulate greater wealth, and improve the self-esteem of homosexuals. But those are political arguments for society to consider, not legal
support for the claim that the US Constitution contains the right to homosexual marriage. The courtroom is simply not the proper forum for what is clearly a social, not a legal, appeal.
Thank you for your continued help through prayer, financial support, encouragement, and spreading the word. We – all of us – are responsible for the shape of our society when we hand it off to future generations.
Sincerely,
Ron Prentice, Executive Director

Walker Reversed, Boies and Olson Legal Witch-hunt Stymied

Photo: Judge Walker’s Brand of Justice?

Good News!

The Prop 8 campaign is getting a break. Judge Vaughn Walker’s order that all private emails and campaign communications be turned over to the opposition for scrutiny by the tolerance police is being reversed.  Law.com is reporting that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has stayed Judge Walker’s outrageous order saying that the campaign had made a “strong showing” that it would succeed on the merits of the discovery issue.

Ted Olson and David Boies, lawyers in the federal challenge to Proposition 8 , claim that Prop 8 violates the federal constitution, and want to find evidence that the Prop 8 backers were motivated by anti-gay animus.

They’ll of course find nothing, but that was never the point.  The point is: they shouldn’t even be allowed to look. It is none of their business!

The intent of the judge’s order was to intimidate and harass those who support the campaign today and in future campaigns who dare support the natural family.   That order was in direct conflict with the 8 Campaign’s First Amendment rights.

“Whether you like it or not” boys, that kind of roughshod intimidation doesn’t fly in a real court.

Judge Walker should be ashamed of himself for the petty nature of the order he put out in the first place.  It’s no surprise he’s being reversed, and by Clinton appointees no less!  Walker and his judicial activism had it coming.

No matter personal animus, Justice should always be blind.

—Beetle Blogger

What is Marriage? Rift in Gay Marriage Effort Widens

See this from ProtectMarriage.com
Dear Friends,

I have previously shared reports of a rift within the same-sex marriage movement about whether to press ahead to attempt to invalidate Prop 8 by initiative in 2010, or to push off the effort to 2012 or later. This week, the chasm between the two camps reached a noteworthy summit: one of California’s largest LGBT grassroots groups (they claim 700,000 supporters), the Courage Campaign, announced the withdrawal of its support for a 2010 fight.

After the Courage Campaign spent a reported $200,000 on voter research, its founder, Rick Jacobs, told the San Francisco Chronicle, “We do not see a path to victory.”

This is significant news because last May the Courage Campaign was one of the first same-sex marriage advocacy groups to sponsor the 2010 initiative effort. It seems that the decisive victories for traditional marriage in California and Maine, the election of pro-marriage governors in New Jersey and Virginia and a pro-marriage Democrat Congressional candidate in New York have homosexual marriage advocates heading back to the drawing board.
In a press release issued this week, Courage Campaign’s Jacobs said:

“We are taking the lessons learned from last year’s Prop. 8 campaign, the campaigns in Maine and other states to understand the fundamental work that must be done before moving forward in California. We also must come together as a community to create a broad coalition and governance structure, put in place a strong manager and secure the resources to win. Right now, the pieces are not all in place to do so confidently.”

That leaves a coalition of small gay rights groups, with Love Honor Cherish as its leading proponent, behind the effort to repeal Prop 8 in 2010. California’s largest LGBT organization, Equality California, will continue to focus efforts on the re-launch of Let California Ring, its multi-year, multimillion dollar educational campaign which also aims to abolish Prop 8, but not until 2012.

While our opponent’s path to an electoral victory has been significantly – if not fatally – damaged by this week’s news, we continue our strategic work on the legal front. The federal lawsuit challenging the validity of Prop 8 is scheduled to go to trial in early January. And yesterday in Pasadena, a 3-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal heard our objections to recent orders to disclose internal campaign documents to opposing counsel.

We are literally working day and night to protect traditional marriage, and we appreciate your support to help us continue this critical fight.

Thank you for standing with us to protect the institution of marriage for this and future generations.

Sincerely,

Ron Prentice
Executive Director

You can donate to the Prop 8 defense fund at:
https://www.completecampaigns.com/FR/contribute.asp?campaignid=Prop8Legal

Religious Freedom Is Being Threatened

Elder Dallin H. Oaks spoke on the rising threat to religious freedom at BYU-Idaho on Tuesday.   We are all guaranteed religious freedom under the U.S Constitution but his condemnation of the recent attacks on that freedom—including gay activists painting swastikas on churches— apparently earned him a spot on Keith Olbermann’s “worst person in the world” list.

??!??  Yes.  It’s true.  What’s all the bruhaha?  Read for yourself what Olbermann’s antics confirm.

—Beetle Blogger

Dallin H. Oaks on Religious Freedom at Risk:

“Religious freedom has always been at risk. It was repression of religious belief and practice that drove the Pilgrim fathers and other dissenters to the shores of this continent. Even today, leaders in all too many nations use state power to repress religious believers.

The greatest infringements of religious freedom occur when the exercise of religion collides with other powerful forces in society. Among the most threatening collisions in the United States today are (1) the rising strength of those who seek to silence religious voices in public debates, and (2) perceived conflicts between religious freedom and the popular appeal of newly alleged civil rights.

Silencing Religious Voices in the Public Square

A writer for The Christian Science Monitor predicts that the coming century will be “very secular and religiously antagonistic,” with intolerance of Christianity “ris[ing] to levels many of us have not believed possible in our lifetimes.”[vi] Other wise observers have noted the ever-growing, relentless attack on the Christian religion by forces who reject the existence or authority of God.[vii] The extent and nature of religious devotion in this nation is changing. The tide of public opinion in favor of religion is receding, and this probably portends public pressures for laws that will impinge on religious freedom.

Atheism has always been hostile to religion, such as in its arguments that freedom of or for religion should include freedom from religion. Atheism’s threat rises as its proponents grow in numbers and aggressiveness. “By some counts,” a recent article in The Economist declares, “there are at least 500 [million] declared non-believers in the world — enough to make atheism the fourth-biggest religion.”[viii] And atheism’s spokesmen are aggressive, as recent publications show.[ix] As noted by John A. Howard of the Howard Center for Family, Religion, and Society, these voices “have developed great skills in demonizing those who disagree with them, turning their opponents into objects of fear, hatred and scorn.”[x]

Such forces — atheists and others — would intimidate persons with religious-based points of view from influencing or making the laws of their state or nation. Noted author and legal commentator Hugh Hewitt described the current circumstance this way:

“There is a growing anti-religious bigotry in the United States. . . .

“For three decades people of faith have watched a systematic and very effective effort waged in the courts and the media to drive them from the public square and to delegitimize their participation in politics as somehow threatening.”[xi]

For example, a prominent gay-rights spokesman gave this explanation for his objection to our Church’s position on California’s Proposition 8:

“I’m not intending it to harm the religion. I think they do wonderful things. Nicest people. . . . My single goal is to get them out of the same-sex marriage business and back to helping hurricane victims.”[xii]

Aside from the obvious fact that this objection would deny free speech as well as religious freedom to members of our Church and its coalition partners, there are other reasons why the public square must be open to religious ideas and religious persons. As Richard John Neuhaus said many years ago, “In a democracy that is free and robust, an opinion is no more disqualified for being ‘religious’ than for being atheistic, or psychoanalytic, or Marxist, or just plain dumb.”[xiii]

Religious Freedom Diluted by Other “Civil Rights”

A second threat to religious freedom is from those who perceive it to be in conflict with the newly alleged “civil right” of same-gender couples to enjoy the privileges of marriage.

We have endured a wave of media-reported charges that the Mormons are trying to “deny” people or “strip” people of their “rights.” After a significant majority of California voters (seven million — over 52 percent) approved Proposition 8’s limiting marriage to a man and a woman, some opponents characterized the vote as denying people their civil rights. In fact, the Proposition 8 battle was not about civil rights, but about what equal rights demand and what religious rights protect. At no time did anyone question or jeopardize the civil right of Proposition 8 opponents to vote or speak their views.

The real issue in the Proposition 8 debate — an issue that will not go away in years to come and for whose resolution it is critical that we protect everyone’s freedom of speech and the equally important freedom to stand for religious beliefs — is whether the opponents of Proposition 8 should be allowed to change the vital institution of marriage itself.

The marriage union of a man and a woman has been the teaching of the Judeo-Christian scriptures and the core legal definition and practice of marriage in Western culture for thousands of years. Those who seek to change the foundation of marriage should not be allowed to pretend that those who defend the ancient order are trampling on civil rights. The supporters of Proposition 8 were exercising their constitutional right to defend the institution of marriage — an institution of transcendent importance that they, along with countless others of many persuasions, feel conscientiously obliged to protect.

Religious freedom needs defending against the claims of newly asserted human rights. The so-called “Yogyakarta Principles,” published by an international human rights group, call for governments to assure that all persons have the right to practice their religious beliefs regardless of sexual orientation or identity.[xiv] This apparently proposes that governments require church practices and their doctrines to ignore gender differences. Any such effort to have governments invade religion to override religious doctrines or practices should be resisted by all believers. At the same time, all who conduct such resistance should frame their advocacy and their personal relations so that they are never seen as being doctrinaire opponents of the very real civil rights (such as free speech) of their adversaries or any other disadvantaged group.”

……..

“It was the Christian principles of human worth and dignity that made possible the formation of the United States Constitution over 200 years ago, and only those principles in the hearts of a majority of our diverse population can sustain that constitution today. Our constitution’s revolutionary concepts of sovereignty in the people and significant guarantees of personal rights were, as John A. Howard has written,

“generated by a people for whom Christianity had been for a century and a half the compelling feature of their lives. It was Jesus who first stated that all men are created equal [and] that every person . . . is valued and loved by God.”[xviii]

Professor Dinesh D’Souza reminds us:

“The attempt to ground respect for equality on a purely secular basis ignores the vital contribution by Christianity to its spread. It is folly to believe that it could survive without the continuing aid of religious belief.”[xix]

Religious values and political realities are so interlinked in the origin and perpetuation of this nation that we cannot lose the influence of Christianity in the public square without seriously jeopardizing our freedoms. I maintain that this is a political fact, well qualified for argument in the public square by religious people whose freedom to believe and act must always be protected by what is properly called our “First Freedom,” the free exercise of religion.”

Transcript of Elder Dallin H. Oaks speech given at BYU-Idaho on 13 October 2009.
See entire transcript in the LDS Newsroom.

Gut and Amend: SB 54—Unconstitutional End-run on Proposition 8

california_vote_stomped

Gut and Amend–The Legislature’s Latest Con to Thwart the Constitution and the Twice Stated Will of the The People

SB 54 started out as a health care coverage bill, introduced by Senator Mark Leno and sponsored by Equality California.  It passed through the necessary bill process and then was summarily gutted top to bottom.  Why?  What did they replace the contents of the already vetted bill with?

This bill, still called SB 54, is no longer a health care bill by design.  In line with Equality California’s gay agenda for California, it now says that a same-sex marriages from out of state, MUST be recognized in California!

This outrage circumvents both Proposition 8 and the California Supreme Court decision upholding the people’s right to amend the California constitution.

“SB 54 requires the state of California to validate and recognize same-sex marriages performed outside the state of California prior to November 5, 2008.  The bill specifically violates Article I, Section 7.5 of the California Constitution which states “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”—California Family Council

The People spoke by the millions during the Proposition 8 election last year and by millions before during Proposition 22.  Twice by vote and now by Constitutional amendment, the Constitution of California recognizes marriage as between one man and one woman.

The gutting and amending of SB 54 allowed this controversial bill to pass to a full floor vote after going through only one committee hearing.  It’s wrong for such a controversial bill to not go through the whole legislative process with maximum public input.

Each year as the Legislature approaches its year-end adjournment, legislators attempt to push through controversial or contentious legislation.  Fight the gay agenda being pushed in California.  Stand up for our Constitution and the proper process that gives full vetting to proposed legislation.  This bill cannot go through!

Cutting out public discourse on legislation? Is this how democracy works in a government with too much power?  Our government needs to work for the people.  Not against them.

Gov. Schwarzenegger has until October 11 to either sign or veto this bill.  Call the Governor to Veto!

—Beetle Blogger

Capitol_Resource_Institute

Action Alert— Encourage Vetoes of SB 54 and SB 572

Gov. Schwarzenegger has until October 11 to either sign or veto the following bills.  Please continue to contact his office and encourage him to veto SB 54 and SB 572:

SB 54-End-run on Proposition 8
The bill states that all marriages performed prior to Proposition 8′s passage last November must be recognized by the state government. If they are performed after Proposition 8′s passage, the marriages will have all the legal rights and benefits of marriage, just not the legal term “marriage.” SB 54 was recently “gutted and amended,” going through only one committee hearing. It’s wrong for such a controversial bill to not go through the whole legislative process with maximum public input.

Read SB 54
Senate Votes for SB 54
Assembly Votes for SB 54

SB 572-Harvey Milk Day
Senator Mark Leno’s bill will declare every May 22 Harvey Milk Day in California. Milk was a San Francisco county supervisor and homosexual activists. According to SB 572, school children will learn about and honor Milk at school every May 22.

SB 572 is designed to insert sexual politics into all California classrooms. The bill language actually states that on Harvey Milk Day, schools are “encouraged” to conduct “exercises remembering the life of Harvey Milk and recognizing his accomplishments as well as the contributions he made to this state.” Such vague language means there are no clear guidelines for what students will do to “commemorate” the life of Harvey Milk and his controversial political activities advancing homosexuality.

Read SB 572
Senate Votes for SB 572
Assembly Votes for SB 572

Contact Governor Schwarzenegger and encourage him to VETO SB 54 and SB 572

Sacramento Office (916) 445-2841
Fresno Office (559) 477-1804
Los Angeles Office (213) 897-0322
Riverside Office  (951) 680-6860
San Diego Office (619) 525-4641
San Francisco Office (415) 703-2218

California: Oppose Senate Bill 54 and Senator Leno’s "Gut and Amend" Tactic to allow out-of-state gay “marriage”.

http://www.sanfranciscosentinel.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/leno-harvey-milk-day-21.jpg

Stand for Marriage posted an email they received from Protect Marriage:

As if the Legislature doesn’t have enough issues to deal with given the chronic $26 billion state budget deficit, some legislators are advancing a new bill in Sacramento designed to rip a huge hole in Proposition 8 and further undercut traditional marriage in California.

We need your help immediately to contact legislators and the Governor to oppose Senate Bill 54, which seeks to undermine Proposition 8, and further attempts to sneak this change by the people of California through a legislative maneuver known as the “gut and amend.”

Last week, Senator Mark Leno stripped out the contents of SB 54 – dealing with health care coverage — and inserted language that would legalize gay marriages performed in other states and nations prior to the passage of Proposition 8. This proposal is in direct conflict with California’s constitution – as amended by the passage of Proposition 8 – that provides only marriage between a man and a woman will be valid or recognized in California. Further, it goes well beyond the California Supreme Court’s decision that allowed to remain valid a limited number of same-sex marriages performed in California last summer before Proposition 8 passed.
It is simply wrong and undemocratic for liberal gay activists like Senator Mark Leno to attempt to circumvent the decision of voters and rewrite our constitution behind our backs with this sneaky “gut and amend” maneuver. That’s why we’re asking you to take action TODAY and urge the legislature, and if it gets to him, the Governor, to oppose this effort to undermine Proposition 8.

Please become an active supporter by opposing SB 54.

Senator Leno’s SB 54 is such a direct assault, and your action will make a difference.

SB 54 will be heard THURSDAY in the Assembly Judiciary Committee. While the odds of stopping the bill here are low, we think that applying pressure now will drive up more no votes on this bill, which helps increase the odds of the Governor vetoing the bill. If the bill makes it to his desk, we are ultimately looking at an effort designed to encourage Governor Schwarzenegger to veto this legislation.

But for now, the fight is in the State Assembly!

Write your state Assembly representative expressing your opposition to SB 54. Ask him or her to vote against SB 54 if it makes it to the Assembly floor.

In particular, if any of the following members of the Assembly Judiciary Committee represent your home area, please call or email them immediately to urge them to oppose SB 54. Your immediate action will send a clear message that Californians are watching and will not sit idly by while liberal legislators attempt to rip a huge hole in Proposition 8.

Assembly Member Mike Feuer (D – West LA, Beverly Hills, West Hollywood)
Assemblymember.feuer@assembly.ca.gov
(310) 285-5490

Assembly Member Van Tran (R – Costa Mesa, Garden Grove)
Trish.zanella@asm.ca.gov
(714) 668-2100

Assembly Member Julia Brownley (D – Calabasas, Oxnard)
Assemblymember.Brownley@assembly.ca.gov
(818) 596-4141

Assembly Member Noreen Evans (D – Santa Rose, Napa)
Assemblymember.evans@assembly.ca.gov
(707) 546-4500

Assembly Member Dave Jones (D – Sacramento)
Assemblymember.jones@assembly.ca.gov
(916) 324-4676

Assembly Member Steve Knight (R – Palmdale, Victorville)
Assemblymember.knight@asm.ca.gov
(661) 267-7636

Assembly Member Paul Krekorian (D – Burbank)
Assemblymember.krekorian@assembly.ca.gov
(818) 558-3043

Assembly Member Ted Lieu (D – El Segundo)
Assemblymember.lieu@assembly.ca.gov
(310) 615-3515
Assembly Member William Monning (D – Santa Cruz, Monterey, Carmel)
Assemblymember.monning@assembly.ca.gov
(831) 425-1503

Assemblyman Jim Nielsen (R – Redding, Yuba City)
Assemblymember.nielsen@assembly.ca.gov
530-223-6300

Prop 8 Team to Help Maine with People’s Veto

maine people's veto

Working for State Marriage Amendment

From Marriage News:

“After becoming the fifth state to legalize gay marriage on May 6, the State of Maine has seen its citizens rally to stop the law from going into effect. It appears that the new statewide strategy to oppose the redefined marriage law will follow California’s Proposition 8, which successfully amended California’s constitution to define marriage as being between one man and one woman.

[…]

The people of Maine have taken many cues from California’s 2008 strategy for protecting traditional marriage, even hiring Schubert Flint Public Affairs, the powerhouse public relations firm that managed the Proposition 8 campaign and helped win 52 percent of the vote in last November’s California election. The PR firm says it will play a consulting role to Maine’s citizens who seek to preserve historic marriage and family. Polling data suggest that the majority of citizens in Maine oppose same-sex marriage.”

Read more here

 

Californians Will Have Their Say On Supreme Court Justices Who Constitutionally Stray

recall-the-judges

Automatic Recall of California Justices?

I learned an interesting thing this morning.  Judicial appointments in California are confirmed by the public at the next general election; justices also come before voters at the end of their 12-year terms.  Who is coming up for the end of their 12 year term this time around??

Three California Supreme Court justices will be up for reelection to 12-year terms on the November 2010 ballot:

1. Ron George – led court to invent homosexual “marriage” last year

2. Ming Chin — voted to uphold Prop. 22 last year

3. Carlos Moreno — voted to invent homosexual “marriages” last year

Carlos Moreno was the lone dissenting vote on upholding Proposition 8.  The amount of stretching and wheedling that had to be done in order to muscle his will into the state constitution automatically discredits him and disbars him in my mind.  There is no way he should ever sit as a judge over this state with that kind of willingness to overlook the basic rights of the people.

Ron George is hardly better.

There are some days when I am so glad to be a Californian.  When I look at these other states so helpless against their legislatures and judiciaries…It’s unfathomable the amount of work they have to put out to reorganize a corrupt system.  The California Constitution gives the people power.

That’s something to be grateful for.

—Beetle Blogger

Outrageous Proposition 8 “Legal Analyst” Bob Massi Spouts Disinformation and Propaganda

Photo: Bob Massi

Dear FOX,

Is Bob Massi a Fox News Legal Analyst???  What kind of commentary is this?  With months of preparation wasted, FOX News’ Bob Massey, on live television mangled easily obtained facts and instead spouted gay activist propaganda:

“this movement, prop 8 was very much funded , millions of dollars, much by the Mormon Church as you know, they spent, they were organized, they went out .. what’s going to happen now? The bottom line is they lost….

There is a lot to be learned by this….  they got out charged, money wise.   They got out organized.  You and I have covered these kind of cases… its all about money.  If you have the amount of money to go out and try to raise the kind of support you want, and to pay the people and the volunteers to get out there, those are the ones that usually win.”

—Bob Massi, Fox News Legal Analyst

Would you like a point by point rebuttal of this awful “legal” analyzing?  I’m just a regular Joe and even I know the true facts about the Proposition 8 campaign.  Send me a check!  I know more than your “Legal Analyst” does!

The Mormon Church gave no money.  They only gave in-kind donations amounting to an insignificant fraction of the donations recieved in the Proposition 8 fight.  As a prop 8 supporter I can tell you that I was not paid, and neither were any of the thousands of volunteers who worked tirelessly for marriage. We worked for Proposition 8 because it was right, not for money.

Proposition 8 supporters were out fundraised and outspent by far, not the other way around.

Fire the “Legal Analyst”.

—Beetle Blogger

« Older entries

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.