And Then There Was Maine

prop8_header - Yes on Proposition 8

November 05, 2009

Dear friends,

November 3, 2009 was an auspicious day for traditional marriage in America.  The eyes of the nation have watched and waited for the outcome of a ballot initiative to prevent homosexual marriage from becoming law in Maine.  It was the 31st attempt by a state’s popular vote to protect the definition of traditional marriage.  Thirty times it had succeeded before, and the stakes were exceedingly high.  Both sides needed the victory – one, to keep our nation on the course divined by God and the other to use it as an indication that the national tide is turning away from centuries of understanding and practice of this sacred issue.

But the night clearly and decisively belonged to traditional marriage, with 53 percent of Maine voters restoring the definition of marriage to between one man and one woman!

The outcome was particularly gratifying because the win came in the liberal New England region of our country where surrounding states have legalized same-sex marriage, with Maine widely expected by the media, political pundits and the national gay establishment to follow suit.  And our opponents had every advantage: they tapped into vast financial resources of pro-homosexual activists across the country, raising nearly $5 million from all but 10 of our 50 states, claimed a volunteer corps of thousands, and were, of course, the darlings of the media.

Yet the traditional marriage campaign strategically and diligently went about the business of laying bare the experiences in states that have legalized same-sex marriage, sharing with Mainers what legal experts on both sides of the issue agreed would be an onslaught of legal actions against those who chose to exercise their conscience if gay marriage became law.

As a result of what occurred in Maine, we continue to herald that every single time voters have had the chance, they have supported traditional marriage.  Voters are tolerant of homosexual relationships, but they draw the line at the centuries-old institution of marriage because they understand the serious consequences to society – especially children – when traditional marriage is dismantled.

In the end, our efforts – buoyed by God’s blessing and the prayers and hard work of many involved in Prop 8 – carried the day, for which we are deeply grateful.  Yet with the same breath used to concede the race, our opponents clearly let it be known that they will continue the fight to make homosexual marriage the social norm.  And while this particular battle was waged and won in Maine, the message from our opponents in California was equally clear.

Equality California issued a message to their supporters just yesterday urging them to contact President Obama to engage in the Prop 8 legal battle by asking the court to rule it unconstitutional.  Make no mistake that our victory in Maine was a crushing blow to the gay activists who continue to fight us in federal court over Prop 8 and who, at this very minute, are directing their efforts to overturn it through another campaign.

We must not and will not rest on our laurels when we know that the other side is more focused than ever to push their agenda after Tuesday’s results.  Please help us keep the momentum for marriage going strong by contributing to our fight right here in California. As we learned in the Golden State last year and again in Maine this week, every effort by each individual participating in our mission makes the difference in the final outcome.


Ron Prentice
Executive Director

Vote Stomp Leno Attempts to Validate Violating the Public Trust


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.


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.


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.


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,


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

Assembly Judiciary Committee Ignores California Voters

Vodpod videos no longer available.

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