Friday, November 21, 2008

How Many California Justices does it take to screw in a Light Bulb?

You would think that the light would come on for the Government in the State of California. The people want Government out of our bedrooms. That’s what homosexuals have always claimed that they wanted and that is what millions of Californians who voted for and passed both Propositions 22 and 8 want too! No government intrusion whether courts or any other form of government because after all what two consenting adults do behind closed doors is nobody else’s business, right!
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.--Alaphiah
Yet once again the California State Supreme Court has inserted itself into the constitutional quagmire of their own making by first striking down a perfectly constitutional ballot initiative, proposition 22, for politically correct reasons and then accepting three challenges to proposition 8, the constitutional amendment that defines marriage for the State of California and which is now an amendment to the state constitution. (see story)

The three cases; Strauss v. Horton (S168047); Tyler v. State of California (S168066); and City and County of San Francisco et al. v. Mark B. Horton, et al. (S168078) (see court order)attempt to invalidate the November 4, 2008 electoral process by claiming that 1. Proposition 8 is invalid because it constitutes a revision of, rather than an amendment to, the California Constitution 2. Proposition 8 violates the separation of powers doctrine under the California Constitution and the question 3) Should Proposition 8 affect homosexual mock marriages that occurred during the brief window that Courts invalidated proposition 22.

As demonstrated by the homosexual street riots and attacks on church congregations, this law suit is not about homosexual rights it is about change. Homosexuals, their allies and their advocates in government intend to change the law and thereby change the society by any means constitutionally or non-constitutionally necessary. That fact is clearly seen in Chief Justice Ronald George’s opinion written for the majority which invalidated prop 22.

When the Courts originally overturned proposition 22 the majority freely admitted that the Constitution of the State of California give them no basis in which to overrule prop 22 but the majority reasoned that because it is now time for change they, a small Oligarchy of 4 justices, invalided 4 million California votes thus their actions subsequently were the catalyst for anarchy to reign in the street of California. It was the Court’s own actions that caused this legal and social quagmire because they chose to dismiss a stay that would have prevented homosexual mock marriages until the vote of prop 8 was decided on November 4.

Marriage had always been understood to unite man and woman in the state of California according to California Chief Justice George, he said so in his judgment. In addition to that in the year 2000 the people of California did not want to leave any doubt about the clarity of that fact and passed proposition 22 by an overwhelming 62% vote on a ballot initiative, everyone clear?

Apparently not. San Francisco Gavin Newsom up and started defying the State law and began issuing illegal wedding licenses and performing illegal weddings in February 2004 as a prequel to the planned challenge of prop 22, Mayor Newsom’s open defiance of the law was so blatant that even the liberal tilted California State Supreme Court had to keep up a veneer of legality by ruling against what Mayor Newsom had done and in addition they ruled that all the illegal marriages that Newsom and the city of San Francisco preformed where invalid.
The justices ruled unanimously that Mayor Gavin Newsom overstepped his authority when he ordered the marriage licenses issued on Feb. 12 in defiance of a state law that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

By a 5-2 vote, the court ruled that none of the 3,955 couples who flocked to City Hall in response to Newsom's decree was ever legally married or entitled to the rights of spouses. The court said their $82 license fees should be refunded.

"A same-sex marriage performed in violation of state law is void and of no legal effect,'' said Chief Justice Ronald George, rejecting the city's plea to leave the couples' status unresolved until the court decides the validity of the marriage law in a future case. --
Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer

What proposition 8 does is restore what the small and obvious biased Oligarchy on the State Supreme Court changed. It was the Court that changed the definition of marriage in its August 2008 ruling, not the people and not proposition 22 or proposition 8.

So the argument that prop 8 revises the Constitution is fundamental flawed as the Court has already stated in its decision against prop 22 that the California Constitution had always been interpreted as marriage uniting man and woman. To simply state that as an amendment to the Constitution does not change thousands of years of human history nor does it change a hundred years of California law and neither does it revise the Constitution.

Also to argue prop 8 violates separation of powers the courts would have to declare the whole ballot initiative process unconstitutional.
The idea of “direct democracy” by vote of the people is an ancient one, predating even the Greek city-states. Today’s forms of direct democracy—the ballot initiative, referendum, and recall—all provide ways to bypass the normal institutions of representative government and place legislative power directly in the hands of the voters.

The initiative process, in particular, is widely used across the United States, with about half the states providing access to it. But only in a few states is the initiative route applied as rigorously and with such sweeping results as in California.

The ballot initiative has a long and colorful history in this state. In the 1800s, only one kind of politics took place in California: corrupt politics, according to the Sacramento Bee, the leading newspaper of the time. The Southern Pacific Railroad, often called “The Octopus,” controlled almost everything in the state—the legislature, the courts, even the press.

The initiative process evolved out of an attempt to wrest control of the state’s political process away from the special interests, especially Southern Pacific. The initiative, referendum, and recall were first enacted at the local level in California when John Randolph Haynes, M.D., convinced the voters of Los Angeles in 1903 to adopt a reform package.

Statewide, the reform movement got a boost when corruption and bribery trials of several prominent labor leaders and corporate executives began in 1906.

Five years later, after many futile attempts to persuade the legislature to adopt the initiative process, direct democracy became part of a package sponsored by newly elected Governor Hiram Johnson.

In 1911, his first year in office, the legislature placed the three components of direct democracy—initiative, referendum, and recall—on the ballot. They were overwhelmingly approved by the voters.--
Robert M. Stern, President, Center for Governmental Studies (see source)
The same is true today homosexual special interest controls and has corrupted the California Governor, the State Attorney General, the State Superintendent of Education, the State legislature and the State Supreme Court as evident by the public support given to homosexuals by each of the afore named.

It is for the purpose of bypassing this very kind of corruption that the California initiative process was approved by the people in 1911.

To argue that the initiative process violates separation of powers attempts to invalidate 87 years of California legal precedence. (see video governor’s support as example)

Last, should prop 8 affect homosexual marriages that occurred during the time that an apparent compromised State Supreme Court made them legal by disregarding hundreds of years of California constitutional precedence and the people’s vote on prop 22 to uphold that precedence.

In the same spirit that San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom violated California law to which the illegal weddings that were produced by his actions were declared invalid by the California State Supreme Court the Court must be fair and find that its own actions violated the State Constitution which by the Court’s own admission had recognized marriage to join man and woman only.

Further the Court’s own negligence in dismissing a motion for stay on its own verdict in the case dismissing Prop 22 has caused the legal quagmire of illegal homosexual marriages in the state of California as well as the street riots that occurred with the passing of Prop 8.

By the Court’s own reasoning it must find itself in violation of the California constitution for invalidating the initiative process with regards to prop 22 and any and all subsequent actions that resulted from the Court’s decision is not valid meaning any marriages that violate prop 22 and/or prop 8 are not legal in the State of California. The Court must so rule.

1 comment:

  1. Anonymous8:05 PM

    Answer: None

    California Justices do not screw light bulbs.

    They do the public instead.