Let this be a teachable moment for anyone who is confused about sexuality, according to the California Constitution marriage is officially defined between a man and a woman.
Let this also be a teachable moment for anyone who attempts to change our society through legal coercion and political Fascism by using the Courts and government to intrude into our bedrooms to do so. This will not be allowed and it is not acceptable even in the ultra Liberal state of California. (see story)and (here)
And let this be a teachable moment to the hubris men and women of the California Supreme Court who could have prevented the chaos of their own making by first respecting the legally voted mandate of the people in proposition 22 and after that by honoring the request for a stay of ruling until the vote on proposition 8 which was request after the California Supreme Court ill-advisedly overturned the will of the people early this year.
Nevertheless, homosexuals, their supporters and their activists attempted to use the courts to ramrod their personal confusions and beliefs on our society in general.
This round started for California with the lawlessness of San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom’s blatant disregard for his office and the rule of law. Newsom took the law into his own hands to force his beliefs about homosexuality on the State of California.
Newsom meant to create chaos in the law and to create an irretrievable point where his acts would be irreversible. Rightly the courts ruled that Newsom’s activities where illegal and in violation of the state constitution and voided out his handiwork. Marriages conducted by the City of San Francisco were declared invalid by the court.
The same must be done with the chaos that the California Supreme Court has purposely caused and all marriages that were entered in under the specter that proposition 8 would be approved must be voided as well. Some believe that the Courts did not allow the requested stay in order to create legal chaos.
Four homosexual advocates on the California Supreme Court, Ronald M. George, Carlos R. Moreno, Kathryn Mickle Werdegar and Joyce Kennard went along with a Orwellian suspension of logic, human history, and Constitutional law by ruling that the eight years old, Californian ballot initiative which 61% of Californians voted into law to define marriage as being only between a man and a woman was unconstitutional.
The California Supreme Court overturned the year 2000 ballot measure, Proposition 22, in the court’s decision May 15 of this year thereby legalizing homosexual mock marriages. Interestingly though they cited that marriage had always been understood to be between a man and a woman according to the State Constitution but they went on to invent a Constitution standing anyway.
Writing for the majority Chief Justice Ronald M. George noted:
First, we must determine the nature and scope of the “right to marry” –a right that past cases establish as one of the fundamental constitutional rights embodied in the California Constitution. Although, as an historical matter, civil marriage and the rights associated with it traditionally have been afforded only to opposite-sex couples…”—Justice Ronald M. George
So how did the California Court get around its own Constitution? By legal jujitsu according to dissenting Justice Marvin Baxter and here’s how they did it, first the four person majority on the court found a fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship and in addition to that they ruled California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians.
The court further found that although our state Constitution does not contain any explicit reference to a “right to marry,” past California cases establish beyond question that the right to marry is a fundamental right whose protection is guaranteed to “all persons” and here’s the legal jujutsu Justice Ronald George had already stated that, as an historical matter, civil marriage and the rights associated with it traditionally have been afforded only to opposite-sex couples.
But what the majority did was redefine historical understanding with the Orwellian phrase “all persons” and by this legal jujutsu they were able to rule that all persons means gay and straight in additional to man and woman. Simply outrageous!
To which Justice Baxter dissented noted:
I cannot join this exercise in legal jujitsu, by which the Legislature’s own weight is used against it to create a constitutional right from whole cloth, defeat the People’s will, and invalidate a statute otherwise immune from legislative interference.
The majority has violated these principles. It simply does not have the right to erase, then recast, the age-old definition of marriage, as virtually all societies have understood it, in order to satisfy its own contemporary notions of equality and justice. (Page 134)
Therefore what the Majority has done, as it was already established with Mayor Gavin Newsom, must be undone and any homosexual marriage resulting because of their ruling must be declared legally null and void to confirm what the will of the people has always been they must do so because the Courts ruling was capricious, arbitrary and not based on the California Constitution. No homosexual marriage should be allowed to hide under the false legal blind which the Court created by its own prejudice and hubris.
Thus the May 15, 2008 ruling was an improper use of judicial authority. Four justices substituted their own prejudices and opinion for law and in an act of judicial tyranny mandated their own desires upon the people of California. Consequently, the people of California were able to cast off this tyrannous, onerous and oppressive ruling therefore no trace of its making should be allowed to remain.
Thomas Jefferson knowing that this day was inevitable for the United States of America wrote in his Bill establishing Religious Freedom in Virginia:
[T]he opinions of men are not the object of civil government, nor under its jurisdiction; that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency is a dangerous fallacy, which at once destroys all religious liberty, because he being of course judge of that tendency will make his opinions the rule of judgment, and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own; that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order; and finally, that truth is great and will prevail if left to herself; that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate; errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them. —Thomas Jefferson, Bill Establishing Religious Freedom in the State of Virginia, 1786
Jefferson argued that opinions, including those of religion, but nevertheless men’s opinions should not be the object of civil government.
In other words whatever your opinion is on homosexuality, it should not be made a government matter. However that is exactly what the Courts and proponents if homosexual rights and homosexual mock marriage did they used government courts to impose their opinions on the rest of society.
What about marriage doesn’t the sexuality confused and their allies in the government and the courts understand? It is the same as it ever was a union between a man and a woman.
Yet after a shocking defeat in one of the most Liberal leaning states in the union homosexuals vow to never give up they will have their way no matter what and they have already filed another suit challenging the legitimate vote and the will of the people of California. Attorney Gloria Allred has filed suit in hopes to once again void out millions of constitutional cast votes however this must not be allowed and it must never happen again. (see video)
In 2000 the people of California defined marriage for its citizens in ballot initiative proposition 22. That wasn’t good enough for a small minority who is confused about their sexuality and wishes to convey this confusion on the general society.
Obviously attempting to make a name for himself, Mayor Gavin Newsom took the law into his own hands and illegality ordered the City of San Francisco to conduct illegal and unconstitutional weddings under his auspices. In response the courts ruled him in violation of the law.
In May of this year the California Supreme Court over turned proposition 22 creating state sponsored homosexuality and mock marriages
November 4, 2008 the people of California restored their rights under the Constitution and amended the California State Constitution with the definition of marriage for the state to be between a man and a woman.
Today homosexuals and their allies still fight against the will of the people. Therefore the people will have to continue to fight and remain ever vigilant to protect their rights and to protect what they know to be true.
Marriage by definition, law and history is the union of man and woman only.