California marriage advocates suing over amendment language change

Supporters of Proposition 8, the California marriage amendment, filed a lawsuit yesterday to block a change made by California Attorney General Jerry Brown to the language of the measure’s ballot title and summary. The petitions circulated to qualify the initiative for the ballot said the measure would amend the state Constitution “to provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California,” but the Attorney General has changed it to say that Proposition 8 seeks to “eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry.”

Jennifer Kerns, spokeswoman for the Protect Marriage coalition, called the new language “inherently argumentative” and said it could “prejudice voters against the initiative,” according to the LA Times. “This is a complete about-face from the ballot title that was assigned” when the measure was being circulated for signatures, Kerns continued.

The paper reports that the move has raised suspicion in some circles that Brown, a possible candidate for governor in 2010, was influenced by politics. “He is delivering something…that is very important to the gay community, and that is a title and summary that is more likely to lead you to vote ‘No,’” said political analyst Tony Quinn, who added that changes this substantive are “highly unusual.”

In addition to the blatantly biased title change, the summary also has been changed and now predicts a loss to state and local governments of tens of millions of dollars in sales tax revenues over the next few years if the measure passes. The Times article then quotes the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office saying that in the long run there would “likely be little fiscal impact.”

California frontier of the moral battle against totalitarian gay politics

On Tuesday, June 17, the California Supreme Court’s decision to allow same-sex “marriage” takes effect and thousands of homosexual couples are expected to tie the knot this year. County clerks will be required by law to issue new gender-neutral marriage licenses.

After the California’s Supreme Court claimed gays had a constitutional right to marriage, the attorney generals of ten states requested that the Court delay finalizing its ruling to legalize same-sex marriage until after the November elections. The Supreme Court refused the request.

Organizations like California Family Council and Campaign for Children and Families also requested that the Court delay the ruling because California citizens have placed a marriage amendment on the November 4 ballot that will restrict marriages to one man and one women. To qualify for the ballot, 694,354 petition signatures were needed, but proponents of the amendment collected 1,120,801 signatures in late April.

It should not be forgotten that California went through this same issue years ago. Citizens passed law called Proposition 22 that restricted marriage to one man and one women. Apparently, California’s judges do not care about either law or the majority of citizens. They are more concerned with advancing liberal agendas.

At least some county officials, however, have stopped conducting any civil marriage ceremonies. On June 13, Virginia-based Liberty Counsel asked the 1st District Court of Appeals to temporarily prohibit all county clerks from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples until after the November election. Their decision is not yet known.

The good news is that a majority of Californians support the marriage amendment. Capitol Resource Institute conducted a national survey in which respondents were asked: Do you agree that only marriage between one man and one woman should be legal and binding in America? California answers this question “yes” 56.20%, and “no” 43.80%.

One of California’s (and America’s) problems is the liberal clergy who pretend to represent Jesus Christ and God. The bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of California issued a letter encouraging all gay couples to get a civil marriage married and then seek the Episcopal Church’s blessing. As Jesus’ apostle Paul said, Satan comes as an angel of light. I suspect the Lord of the Church will soon judge such liberals who, like Jezebel and the Nicolaitans mentioned in the Book of the Revelation, serve Satan and the politics of immorality.

The shining white lie is that Christians should not judge but loving tolerate the politics of immorality. However, scripture says to judge others according the results of their behaviors and “prophets” according to their words. Speakers for God will not contradict what He has already revealed through prior prophets, apostles, and Jesus.

Sources:

Nathan Black, California County Halts Wedding Ahead of Gay Marriage Rush, The Christian Post June 2008.

Associated Press, 10 States Ask Calif. Court to Delay Gay ‘Marriage’, May 31, 2008.

Lisa Leff, Gay ‘Marriage’ Ban Qualifies for California Ballot, June 3, 2008.

Associated Press, Group Asks Lower Calif. Court to Stop Gay ‘Marriages’, June 13, 2008.

Karen England, New Poll Finds Majority of Californians Support Traditional Marriage, Christian Newswire, June 2, 2008

Lillian Kwon, Calif. Bishop Drives Gay ‘Marriage’ Momentum to Church, The Christian Post, June 12, 2008.

Lots of pornography found on computer of Judge in LA obscenity case

From Aaron Leichman’s the Christian Post news report on June 13, 2008.

In one of the nation’s most high profile cases involving the prosecution of obscenity, pro-family groups and other commentators believed that they had a solid case against a Los Angeles advertizing agency owner who produced and sold thousands of what one attorney described as “the most extreme [pornographic videos] ever been put on trial.”

That is, until the case was temporarily suspended this week after the presiding judge was revealed to have a mountain of obscene pornographic videos on his personal web page.

Although state prosecutors spoke of a significant “conflict of interest” as they requested a 48-hour stay, pro-family groups have called for nothing less than the removal of Ninth Circuit Court Chief Justice Alex Kozinski from the case.

“As of this morning, he [has] yet to recuse himself from the current case involving sexual fetish videos,” the Family Research Council said in a statement.

“[Americans], like FRC, believe that Kozinski is ill-equipped to try an obscenity case when he clearly does not understand the definition of obscene. We call for his recusal in this case and a reexamination of his fitness as chief of one of the most important courts in the entire nation,” the group added.

But perhaps the most incredulous aspect of the recent case, according to pro-family groups, is Kozinki’s apparent indifference to the controversy of having a web page containing obscene pornographic images.

“Is it prurient?” Kozinski asked, according to the Los Angeles Times, which revealed the existence of the images and videos on the judge’s Web site. “I don’t know what to tell you… It’s part of life. This is a funny joke.”

A joke, however, that few Americans find funny, the FRC said.

The case, which involves Ira Isaacs, who is charged with obscenity for selling movies depicting bestiality and fetishes involving feces and urination, could prove challenging for prosecutors to effectively put on trial.

Kozinski called Thursday for an ethics panel to investigate his own conduct and said he would fully cooperate in any investigation, according to The Associated Press . He has acknowledged the sexual content on his personal Web site and claimed the images were not obscene. The California judge, however, also told the legal Web site abovethelaw.com that he doesn’t remember “putting some of that stuff” there.

“The problem with obscenity is no one really knows what it is. It’s relatively simple to paint something as an artistic effort even if it’s offensive,” said Jean Rosenbluth, a former federal prosecutor and law professor at University of Southern California, as reported by AP.

In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that work cannot be considered obscene if it is deemed to have “literary, artistic, political or scientific value.”

The case will be relegated to a temporary pause until prosecutors decide how to further proceed.

California Clerks Urged to Follow Marriage Laws Despite Refusal by California Supreme Court and Governor Schwarzenegger

With both the California Supreme Court and Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger refusing to abide by constitutional separation of powers and the California statutes recognizing only man-woman marriages, a leading California pro-family organization has contacted county clerks to urge them to be the last and best defense for man-woman marriage licenses.

On May 27, Campaign for Children and Families (CCF) faxed letters and documentation to 38 of 58 county clerks, where the man-woman marriage ethic is its strongest in California. Already several clerks have responded, telling CCF they intend NOT to issue any same-sex “marriage” licenses.

CCF’s letter and legal documentation reached clerks on Wednesday, the same day that the Schwarzenegger administration sent clerks altered marriage license application forms, replacing the statutory “bride”/“groom” requirement with unlawful “Party A” and “Party B” designations.

“We’re encouraging the clerks to abide by the express will of the written California Constitution and the man-woman marriage statutes, and to respect the democratic process which will be decided at the ballot box in November, by not issuing marriage licenses to anyone but a man and woman,” said CCF President Randy Thomasson. “The judges and the Governor are violating the Constitution and the statutes, but county clerks know they have a duty follow the statutes, which haven’t been changed yet. Clerks don’t have to issue homosexual ‘marriage’ licenses, and they shouldn’t.”

Gary Kreep, executive director of the San Diego-based United States Justice Foundation, is offering pro bono legal counsel to clerks who resist the Supreme Court’s unconstitutional ruling:

“We’re asking that you please decline to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples unless and until the Legislature changes the marriage statutes, the People change the Constitution, and/or all legal options have been exhausted,” Kreep wrote the clerks. “By doing so, you will follow California law, respect the democratic process, and avoid being drawn into what dissenting California Supreme Court Justice Marvin Baxter called the ‘majority’s foreclosure of this ordinary democratic process.’”

Source: Campaign for Children and Families, May 29, 2008.

The state of things to come? Fined, fired or even jailed unless we relent?

According to a May 21 Seattle PI editorial regarding the California Supreme Court’s recent ruling in favor of legalizing homosexual marriages, openly homosexual Washington State Senator Ed Murray, D-Seattle, and a representative of the largest Michigan gay-rights group, the Triangle Foundation, have said that people who continue to act as if marriage is a union between a man and a woman should face being fined, fired and even jailed until they relent.

Senator Murray denies saying this but the author of the PI article, David Benkof, he himself a homosexual who opposes gay-marriage, responds to Sen. Murray’s denial saying that Murray wrote him the following statements:

“If we ever pass a law that allows for marriage equality for same sex couples, then whatever current law states regarding discrimination against any married couples, should apply to them.”

As to a business owner who in an act of civil disobedience absolutely refused to behave as if a wife-wife couple were married because he believes deeply that they are not:

“The law should be enforced, just as it was when either King or Gandhi engaged in civil disobedience. Both ended up in jail despite the righteousness of their cause.”

As many of you know, Senator Murray has been nothing less than a diligent promoter of the gay agenda. He is the author of the 2007 domestic partnerships/civil unions bill and this year’s expansion of that measure. Both measures were passed by the Washington State Legislature and signed into law by Governor Christine Gregoire.

It is a sad reality that state government in Olympia has spun wildly out of balance with cultural liberals controlling all three legislative branches of government; and a tragedy that the leadership of the current majority party has allowed a core of homosexual activists and secular “progressives” to hijack their social policy.

As Senator Ed Murray and his cohorts in Olympia draw ever closer to making same-sex marriage the law of the land, Washingtonians had best open their eyes and swing into action as we can now see a time fast approaching when speaking out in opposition to the homosexual movement may not only cost you your job, but some jail or prison time.

Source: Family Polict Institute of Washington, May 28, 2008.

New York Recognizes Out-of-State Same-Sex ‘Marriages’

by Devon Williams, associate editor of CitizenLink Daily

‘Marriage is not a legal vehicle for the purpose of equality; it’s a social institution with children at its heart.’

New York Gov. David Paterson has sided with gay activists by deciding to change up to 1,300 state policies and regulations to include same-sex couples who were “married” elsewhere.

Paterson’s directive to state agencies was issued May 14 and became public this week.

Same-sex “marriage” is illegal within New York state borders, but the Court of Appeals, the highest court in New York, decided this month to let stand a ruling that required the state to recognize same-sex “marriages” performed legally elsewhere. Paterson’s directive affirms the ruling.

In 2006, the same court ruled that only the union of a man and a woman is a legal marriage, and that the definition is constitutional.

Jenny Tyree, associate marriage analyst at Focus on the Family Action, said the court and Paterson are ignoring the 20 million New Yorkers who have defined traditional marriage via state statutes.

“Our children and grandchildren will pay a very high price if we allow marriage to be changed to suit another purpose entirely,” she said. “Marriage is not a legal vehicle for the purpose of equality; it’s a social institution with children at its heart.”

Paterson’s directive follows the recent 4-3 decision by the California Supreme Court to legalize same-sex “marriage.”

Bruce Hausknecht, judicial analyst for Focus on the Family Action, said these actions highlight the need for marriage protection at the federal level.

“A governor’s constitutional duty is to enforce the laws of his state, not make them,” he said. “The legal quagmire created by these authoritarian decrees reinforces the need for a federal marriage amendment to be added to the U.S. Constitution.”

Now is the time to ask your U.S. representative to co-sponsor the Marriage Protection Amendment.

Marriage Protection Amendment as Response to NY Governor’s Forced “Gay Marriage” Rulings of CA and MA Judges

The Alliance for Marriage called upon Congress to pass AFM’s Marriage Protection Amendment in response to New York Governor David Patterson’s stunning directive ordering New York State to recognize “same-sex marriages” performed in California, Massachusetts, and Canada.

“By executive fiat, New York has become the second state in two weeks to overturn both common sense and the Will of the People on the definition of marriage,” said Matt Daniels, president and founder of the Alliance for Marriage. “Today’s directive from Governor Patterson illustrates the need for the Marriage Protection Amendment drafted by AFM.”

“The anti-democratic fallout of the California Supreme Court decision striking down marriage is not unexpected, and will only continue to crash down upon other states nationwide,” said Daniels. “AFM has led the charge in Congress for federal protection of marriage as the only way to prevent the decisions of judges in California and elsewhere being forced on residents of other states.”

“Most Americans – and most New Yorkers – want our laws to send a positive message to kids about marriage, family and their future. Today is a sad day for the people of New York who have lost the right to choose the course that is best for them, their families and their children,” continued Daniels.

“Americans believe that gays and lesbians are free to live as they choose, but they don’t believe they have a right to redefine marriage for our entire society,” said Daniels. “But the common-sense definition of marriage – and the values of most Americans – cannot be protected apart from AFM’s Marriage Protection Amendment.”

The Alliance for Marriage and Alliance for Marriage Foundation are multicultural coalitions whose Board of Advisors includes Rev. Walter Fauntroy – the D.C. Coordinator of the March on Washington for Martin Luther King Jr. – as well as other civil rights and religious leaders, and national legal experts.

Source: Emailed press release from http://www.afmusa.org.

Marriage Under Further Attack!

by Illinois Family Institute

Two weeks ago, four activist judges on the California State Supreme Court overturned the express will of the voters of California and declared homosexual “marriage” legal in that state.

Yesterday, New York’s Governor, David A. Paterson, sidestepping that state’s voters and their Legislature, directed all state agencies to revise their policies and regulations to recognize homosexual “marriages” performed in other states or countries.

Last year a bill that would have legalized homosexual “marriage” in New York failed to pass.

Paterson’s directive makes New York the only state that does not allow homosexual “marriage” itself but recognizes homosexual unions entered into elsewhere. The directive will require revisions to an estimated 1,300 New York statutes and regulations.

The move by Gov. Paterson works in tandem with the recent California decision. Unlike Massachusetts (the only other state to legalize homosexual “marriage”) the California decision does not have a residency requirement. Homosexual partners living in New York could travel to California, participate in a so-called “marriage” ceremony, and return to New York to demand full recognition of their union.

“The legal chaos surrounding marriage has begun, thanks to the recent California decision,” said IFI’s Executive Director David E. Smith. “This latest usurpation of the democratic process — this time via the executive branch — ignores the people’s will to keep marriage from being redefined. This latest attack only underscores the necessity of protecting marriage through constitutional amendments at the state — and ultimately the federal – levels.”

If you haven’t already communicated your opposition to the current push for counterfeit marriage (civil unions) here in Illinois, this is a prime opportunity to do so! I cannot stress enough the urgency of your action here.

Click HERE to send an email or fax to your State Representative today and ask him/her to vote ‘NO’ to the “Civil Unions” bill — HB 1826. Our email system is very easy to use, and it will only take a minute or two of your time.

California Court Agrees to Reconsider Homeschooling Rule

The California Court of Appeal agreed Tuesday to a request by attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund to reconsider a Feb. 28 decision making most homeschooling a crime in the state.

“Parents have a fundamental right to make educational choices for their children,” said ADF Senior Counsel Gary McCaleb. “Because this ruling impacts all Californians, we believe the case deserves a second look. We look forward to presenting this case for rehearing.”

Ruling against a child enrolled at Sunland Christian School, a private homeschooling program, the California Court of Appeal found, in the case In re: Rachel L., that parents who educate their children at home could be criminally liable under California law.

“Another look at this case will help ensure that the fundamental rights of parents are fully protected,” said ADF-allied attorney Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation.

Source: LifeSite News

California Gov. Schwarzenegger Pledges to Support Right to Home School

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has called for the reversal of a recent appellate court decision banning parents from educating their children at home if they lack teaching credentials, the Los Angeles Times reported. If the state Supreme Court fails to act, the governor vowed to push through legislation guaranteeing families’ right to home-school.

“This outrageous ruling must be overturned by the courts, and if the courts don’t protect parents’ rights, then, as elected officials, we will,” he said in a written statement.

Schwarzenegger’s comments about the 2nd District Court of Appeals ruling came as home schooling families and national conservative leaders expressed their beliefs that every parent has a fundamental right to home-school.

Dr. James C. Dobson interrupted the Focus on the Family radio program’s regular programming to discuss the ruling.

“What has occurred is yet another egregious decision handed down by a California appeals court that strikes at the very heart and soul of families and their children,” he said on Friday’s broadcast. “The court has assaulted parental rights again, and this time with a sledgehammer.”

For more information, go here.

Ruined children state sanctioned

The other day, I sat next to a very confused 18-year-old young man. His father and stepmother, with sad voices and heavy hearts, told me the boy, as a youngster, had been molested by a relative, now considers himself “gay,” and frequently wears women’s clothes. His step mom told me she was afraid he was going be killed. She said he goes to bars dressed as a woman, and that someone is going to be very angry to find out the “she” is really a “he.” I tried to talk to the young man, but as severely disturbed as he was, he wouldn’t talk and only giggled nervously.

I put the parents in touch with a local Exodus International counselor who specializes on helping persons who struggle with homosexuality and gender-identity disorder. I was still thinking about the boy’s condition on a particularly busy morning when I missed breakfast and drove through McDonald’s for an egg burrito. The girl at the window had on a new, pink uniformed jacket. “Hey, those are good jackets,” I told her. “Are the boy’s jackets blue?” I asked. “No, they’re black,” she answered. I was surprised and impressed. Although McDonald‘s is a pro-homosexuality corporation, it still acknowledges the difference between outer male and outer female.

Do you realize what this means? We now live in a time when most people acknowledge the difference between male and female, but the government schools do not. A Colorado elementary school is teaching all the children there to approve of transsexuality in response to allowing an 8-year-old cross-dressing boy to enroll. And soon, because of new state laws, all California government schools will positively portray homosexuality, bisexuality, and transsexuality to children as young as five years old, without parental permission.

The threat to children’s innocence is very real. No one can deny it. Pornography begets molestation, molestation begets homosexuality and transsexuality, and these sexual lifestyles combined with political activism have beget anti-family government and anti-family school policies, and the vicious cycle continues.

Rescue Your Child is one organization dedicated to helping parents discover how to save children morally, socially, and academically.

LA Convicted Sexual Predator Abortionist Arrested for Practicing Medicine without License

Abortionist Laurence Reich was arrested and jailed last week in Los Angeles for practicing medicine without a license after a special LAPD Task Force discovered he had been doing abortions illegally. Reich, who faces three felony counts, posted a $60,000 bond and was released.

A protective order has been placed on the case, but it is known that the arrest is a result of an Health Authority Task Force (HALT) investigation that culminated in the raiding of several Clinical Medical Para La Mujer De Hoy abortion mills on August 1, 2007. That raid resulted in the arrest of owner Bertha Bugarin and her sister, Rachel, for doing abortions without medical licenses.

Reich, an Osteopath, was forced to surrender his medical license on April 14, 2006, after a conviction on two counts of sexually molesting his abortion patients. Reich had previously served 10 years probation on a similar conviction in 1984. Operation Rescue exposed information it obtained that indicated that Reich engaged in gross sexual “misconduct” with his patients, which included fondling them before, during, and after abortions.

“Laurence Reich is a rapist who uses abortion to gain access to his victims. It doesn’t get any worse than that. Operation Rescue has for years called on authorities to put him in jail because of his pattern of perverted behavior,” said Operation Rescue President Troy Newman. “The law has no meaning for these people. Only substantial jail time will adequately protect the public from falling prey them.”

If convicted on the charges of practicing medicine without a license, Reich could face up to four years and four months in prison.

— Source: LifeSite.com

The battle for marriage is a battle for the Church’s survival

Sabrina Arena Ferrisi wrote:

Despite a growing acceptance of same-sex “marriage” in the popular culture, California’s sizable Latino community lauds traditional marriage. There are 57 million Hispanics nationwide — including 12 million illegal immigrants. Most come from Mexico and Central America where same-sex “marriage” and homosexuality are shunned by the culture. Many conservatives believe Hispanic Americans are the key to saving traditional marriage. “Embedded in the cultural narrative of the Latino community is a definite thread of God and family,” said Sam Rodriguez, an evangelical pastor and president of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference (NHCLC), which serves 15 million Hispanic Americans. Newsweek recently named Rodriguez one of 2008’s Top Religious Leader to Look For. Traditional marriage “is not a matter of intolerance but of survivability,” said Rodriguez.

“All the studies show that it’s the only antidote to kids entering gangs, teen pregnancy, high school dropouts, etc.” Rodriguez’s strategy is to mobilize the NHCLC’s network of 18,000 churches nationwide to vote for candidates who support traditional marriage….

Ferrisi also pointed out that the tradition values of Hispanics resonate with the Republican party platform. There is a concern among some that the Republican party’s hard stance on immigration may hurt Republican candidates in the November elections.

Conservatives support immigrants. Conservatives are against illegal immigrants free riding on taxpayers money. They oppose illegals taking away jobs from citizens or diminishing their pay scale. Conservatives do not like green card carrying tech workers taking away jobs from college graduates because employers can pay them less. They reject liberal leaning reform because of government failure to enforce the current law. This conservative would support allowing some illegals to stay only based on clear criteria on previous need. For example, illegal who came here because of of proven political persecution related to mere dissent or religion. If a illegal came immigrated because of proven dire financial circumstances without the possibility of assistance from church or government, then they should probably be allowed to stay.

On the subject of same-sex marriage, Ferrisi wrote:

“People are told in our culture that homosexual ‘marriage’ is a civil right, and if you are against this, you are called a bigot,” Charles LiMandri explained. “But all the evidence is on our side. We have mountains of data to prove that children and society do best when marriage is between a man and a woman. All the opposition has is emotional appeal. There is no evidence that homosexual ‘marriage’ gives any of the benefits of traditional marriage.”

LiMandri, a member of Legatus’s San Diego Chapter, is heading up a coalition of groups in California to place a marriage amendment on the November ballot. The constitutional amendment defines marriage as the union of one man and one women only. In 2000, California passed Proposition 22 to protect the traditional marriage. Gays and liberal politicians pushing for gay marriage. Thus necessitating a constitutional amendment.

Rescue Your Child From Forced Gay Sex Ed

Rescue Your Child is California-based Campaign for Children and Families response to legislation passed mandating transsexuality, bisexuality, and homosexuality indoctrination of all children from kindergarten to 12the grade. The Rescue Your Child website is a clearinghouse of information for families, parents, and kids. Information about the various laws, what they mean, how they are being implemented, and the effects expected from homosexual indoctrination will have on children and eventually society are covered. So a number of ways parents can take control of their children’s education including resources on homeschooling, private schooling, and more….

See video of homosexuals brainwashing of children in elementary school.

Parents living in other states have cause for concern about mandatory gay sex education law. One man-one woman marriage law is not sufficient to prevent this kind of coerced sex education as proven in the state of California. Governor Arnold Schwarzenagger confirmed Republican politicians cannot be depended upon either. Parents have to take control of their children’s education.

In light of states forcing gay sex education at all age levels, parents and other citizens should demand education vouchers be given to parents in order to them to provide the type of education they want for their children. The Supreme Court ruled in Zelman v. Simmons-Harris that vouchers given directly to parents for educational purposes does not violate the First Amendment in any way. Therefore, parents can either demand vouchers or they could demand their legislature create enforceable opt-out laws. However, Massachusetts already has opt-out laws for children whose parents not wanting their kids to take sex ed classes, but state and federal courts annulled those laws when they denied the Parker family the right to exercise it. The only other possibly is to seek impeachment of those lawbreaking activist judges, which will not happen because the same legislature that passed the offensive law may still be in office.