Archive for February, 2009
Pray for Prop 8: Supreme Court hears Arguments March 5
Pray for Prop 8: Supreme Court hears Arguments March 5
Proposition 8 won in California by the same margin of victory as Barack Obama for president. Next Thursday, March 5, the California Supreme Court will hear oral arguments to determine whether the sovereign will of the people should be upheld, and whether marriage between only a man and a woman will stand.
This is the most important legal issue impacting society in a generation and will impact generations to come. The outcome of this case will affect and influence court decisions across the country.
This event’s purpose is to remind the media, Californians and Americans everywhere that support for traditional marriage is the majority position in the state.
What you can do:
1. Proposition 8 was supported by over 7 million voters, and we call on those who support traditional marriage to pray for it to be upheld. Please ask God for wisdom for the Justices of the California Supreme Court.
2. Pray for those who oppose this amendment to our Constitution, that they would understand our motivation is to affirm traditional marriage, not to offend any person or group.
3. Educate yourself about the issue.
Revision v. Ammendment: CA supreme Court: Prop 8 is a legal amendment
4. Join the Facebook event and/or post your support on your blog or facebook page with buttons.
If you can go to the courthouse in San Francisco:
1. All messages on homemade signs should affirm traditional marriage, and avoid offensive statements regarding alternative lifestyles.
2. Arrive at the courthouse by 8am
3. Avoid violence and provocation. Our purpose is affirming traditional marriage.
———————————
Talking Points:
———————————
“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.
4 comments February 28, 2009
Marriage: Federally Funded Ad Campaign Encourages Value
Marriage: Federally Funded Ad Campaign Encourages Value
USA Today has an interesting article on how the federal government is encouraging marriage. My favorite part:
The average age at first marriage is now almost 26 for women and 28 for men. And a growing percentage of Americans aren’t marrying at all: Provisional federal statistics released Tuesday report 7.1 marriages per 1,000 people in 2008, down from 10 per 1,000 in 1986.
Faced with such numbers, the federal government is funding a $5 million national media campaign that launches this month, extolling the virtues of marriage for those ages 18 to 30.
"We’re not telling people ‘Get married’ but ‘Don’t underestimate the benefits of marriage,’ " says Paul Amato, a Pennsylvania State University sociologist and adviser to the National Healthy Marriage Resource Center, which is spearheading the campaign.
The resource center, a federally funded virtual clearinghouse, works under an agreement with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Administration for Children and Families.
Research suggests a bevy of benefits for those who marry, including better health, greater wealth and more happiness for the couple, and improved well-being for children.
Some say the government has no business using tax dollars to promote marriage. But others say the campaign is just like those conducted by other federal agencies to encourage the use of seat belts and discourage drug use, smoking and drunken driving.
With ads on social networking sites Facebook and MySpace, videos on YouTube, spots on radio talk shows, ads in magazines and public transportation and a new website TwoOfUs.org, creators say the aim is to start a national conversation about marriage.
read full article here
February 28, 2009
Abortion: African-Americans in the Crosshairs
Abortion: African-Americans in the Crosshairs
by UFI
February is Black History Month, and we are reminded of the many African-Americans who have made remarkable contributions to our great country. Sadly, I am reminded also of the huge number of African-American babies aborted every day in the United States snuffing out enormous future potential from this community. Adding insult to injury, evidence has surfaced over the last few months concerning anti-African-American attitudes in the abortion industry.
It has long been known-but largely unreported–that Margaret Sanger (the founder of Planned Parenthood) advocated population control and birth prevention among the “unfit” from the beginning of her public work. As early as 1915, Sanger’s first handbook entitled,What Every Boy and Girl Should Know, discussed the vicious cycle of ignorance breeding poverty and poverty breeding ignorance. Sanger’s solution to this problem was to prevent the birth of children who would not have an inheritance of health or intelligence and whose parents could not provide for them. This philosophy resulted in the creation of Sanger’s Negro Project in 1939-a program aimed at restricting reproduction among the African-American population.
read full article here
February 27, 2009
Prop 8| Sr 7: Response to Senator Leno
Beetle Babee posted this letter to her site last night in response to the letter her friend received from Senator Leno’s office justifying his authorship of SR 7. Please feel free to post this on your blog, or send it to friends.
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 s0 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
2 comments February 27, 2009
Prop 8|Sr 7: Senator Leno’s Justification
One of Beetle Babee’s friends received an email from Senator Leno’s office explaining his decision to organize resolution SR 7.
It’s really interesting, as is the discussion that follows.
Beetle Babee: Vote Stomp Leno Validates Violating the Public Trust
The email from Senator Leno’s office is full of errors and discrepancies and loaded rhetoric.
4 comments February 26, 2009
Protect Life: My unborn Nephew | 10 weeks alive
Protect Life: My unborn Nephew | 10 weeks alive
One day late last fall, I had a phone conversation with my sister. She’d been trying to get pregnant for two years. Compared to many, this is not a long time—but when you want to have a baby: any period of time seems like ages and ages of eternities.
She and her husband had just tried invitro.
It wasn’t going to work, she said.
There weren’t enough mature follicles. There was only one egg ready for fertilization. We did another round of AI, she said.
All the family thought little happy prayers for that little egg (and for one lucky sperm).
A week later we found out: Pregnant!
This is a picture of my nephew at ten weeks. The ultrasound image is a little blurry, because he’s moving his arms and legs too much. He won’t be still.
Protect Life:
Abortion is not an answer to unwanted pregnancy. We cannot take away someone else’s rights to get out of our responsibilities. Abortion is not a valid form of birth control.
12 comments February 25, 2009
CA Prop 8| SR 7 & HR 5: What you can do
Urge Your Reps to Vote No on SR7 and HR5
California Citizens: Today’s assignment is to call or email your representatives in the Legislature (especially if your representative is a Democrat).
SR7 passed committee by a 3-2 party line vote. That means it will be on the floor as soon as tomorrow. We need to remind our representatives of the importance of what we voted for.
Find your legislators here.
SR 7 encourages the State Supreme Court to overturn the vote of the people on proposition 8, and reinstitute their prior ruling that legalized homosexual marriages.
Talking Points:
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?
See Beetle Babee: SR7 Passes Committee on 3-2 Party Line Vote
February 25, 2009
CA Prop 8 |SR 7 & HR 5: Inappropriately Violates Separation of Powers.
CA Prop 8 |SR 7 & HR 5: Inappropriate Measures because they Violate Separation of Powers.
One commentator got “separation of powers” and “separation of church and state” mixed up in a discussion. I thought it might be good to review how our state government works.
Lucky for me, Euripedes wrote a great post here and Chairm made an excellent comment that I think breaks down what happened with Prop 8 & the upcoming supreme court decision which I think also sheds some light on the SR 7 and HR 5 problem.
From Chairm:
The marriage amendment, approved by the People, clarifies and “protects California’s constitutional understanding of marriage by defining it as a union between one man and one woman.”
The judiciary is not empowered to amend the state constitution. There is an amending process for that and the marriage amendment fullfilled the requirements of that process.
Prior to the election, the ballot measure passed through all the hurdles including judicial review. If it was a really a revision rather than an amendment, then, it would not have reached the ballot. A revision requires a significantly different process.
The Court is powerless to remove the marriage amendment from the text of the CA state constitution. The amending process clearly says that upon the vote of the majority the amendment is activated.
The Court is powerless to revise the state constitution by granting itself supreme authority to nullify any part of the state constitution. Each word of the constitution is meaningful. The marriage amendment added clarity where the court had misconstrued the meaning of marrige.
If the CA court attacks the marriage amendment, it would declare itself a superlegislature and it would treat citizens as mere subjects. For that it has no constitutional authority to do.
It is also a wrong for the legislature to overtly attempt to influence the judiciary by passing SR 7 and HR 5.
Then entire discussion is really interesting: Euripides| The California Supreme Court and Same Sex Marriage: Natural and Civil Rights
1 comment February 24, 2009
CA prop 8| SR 7 Senate Judiciary Vote Soon (today)
CONTACT MEMBERS OF THE
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE TODAY
Ask them to VOTE NO on SR 7
Vote Can Happen Anytime After 1:00 pm on February 24, 2009
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
| Tom Harman, Vice Chair (R) | 916 651-4035 | senator.harman@senate.ca.gov |
| Dean Florez (D) | 916 651-4016 | senator.florez@senate.ca.gov |
| Mark Leno (D) | 916 651-4003 | senator.leno@senate.ca.gov |
| Ellen Corbett, Chair (D) | 916 651-4010 | senator.corbett@senate.ca.gov |
| Mimi Walters (R)
|
916 651-4033 | senator.walters@senate.ca.gov
|
1 comment February 24, 2009
12-year Old Girl Speaks Out on Abortion: Saves a Life | The Starfish Story
12-year Old Girl Speaks Out on Abortion: Saves a Life | The Starfish Story
Last week, 12-year old Lia spoke out on Abortion. After a lot of teacher discouragement and one wrongful disqualification, she won a school wide competition. She went to the regional competition. She lost.
But! according to one comment posted on the youtube video, she’s saved one unborn child.
All of this reminds me of a little story:
The Starfish
by Loren Eiseley (1907 – 1977)
Once upon a time, there was a wise man who used to go to the ocean to do his writing. He had a habit of walking on the beach before he began his work.
One day, as he was walking along the shore, he looked down the beach and saw a human figure moving like a dancer. He smiled to himself at the thought of someone who would dance to the day, and so, he walked faster to catch up.
As he got closer, he noticed that the figure was that of a young man, and that what he was doing was not dancing at all. The young man was reaching down to the shore, picking up small objects, and throwing them into the ocean.
He came closer still and called out "Good morning! May I ask what it is that you are doing?"
The young man paused, looked up, and replied "Throwing starfish into the ocean."
"I must ask, then, why are you throwing starfish into the ocean?" asked the somewhat startled wise man.
To this, the young man replied, "The sun is up and the tide is going out. If I don’t throw them in, they’ll die."
Upon hearing this, the wise man commented, "But, young man, do you not realize that there are miles and miles of beach and there are starfish all along every mile? You can’t possibly make a difference!"
At this, the young man bent down, picked up yet another starfish, and threw it into the ocean. As it met the water, he said, "It made a difference for that one."
[Hat-tip: Fight for Family]
2 comments February 24, 2009
