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.

An In-depth Look at Article 9 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child

(Parental Rights.org) Last week, we began our series on the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) by looking at the Convention’s central focus on the “best interests of the child,” which allows the government to substitute its will for that of the parents. This principle is significant as we turn our attention to one of the first rights that the CRC grants to children: the right to remain in their family.

THE RIGHT TO A FAMILY… ALMOST

At first glance, Article 9 of the CRC may appear harmless and even idyllic: “a child shall not be separated from his or her parents against their will, except when competent authorities subject to judicial review determine, in accordance with applicable law and procedures, that such separation is necessary for the best interests of the child.” But despite references to “competent authorities” and “judicial review,” a closer examination quickly reveals that the emphasis on the child’s “best interests” grants the government broad latitude to intervene in the family.

There are many broad and diverse opinions when it comes to what makes a “good parent.” Parents may read a popular parenting book, attend a parenting class, or turn to their own parents or a trusted mentor for advice. Likewise, there is also a broad range of opinions when it comes to when a child should be removed from the home. Clearly a child who is being sexually or physically abused should be saved from that circumstance, but what about more complex issues? Should children be separated from their parents if they are spanked? What about parents who are disabled or have a physical handicap? What about families who are too poor to provide the best quality of living for their children? There are many answers that could be given about what is in the “best interests of the child,” depending on the person who is being asked.

This is why the Supreme Court ruled in 1993 that the “best interests” test could only be applied when a family is broken, such as in divorce proceedings when the dispute is between two parents. When the family is intact, however, courts are required to prove that a parent is “unfit” to raise the children, which requires a state to satisfy a much higher burden of proof. Article 9 destroys this distinction and uses the same test for families that are broken and families that are intact. By analogy, the “best interests” standard treats the government as if it were the other parent in a divorce-proceeding, placed on the same footing as the child’s natural parents in a battle for custody of the child.

TRAMPLING ON PARENTAL RIGHTS

In 1980, the Supreme Court of Washington heard the case of a fifteen-year-old girl who had enlisted state social workers in her quest to live separately from her parents. The girl had resisted her parents’ efforts to discipline her through grounding, and claimed that there was “conflict within her home,” though when asked by a judge about the nature of this conflict, the girl simply replied: “I just feel that there’s a communication gap there.” In an imposing display of judicial power, the court ruled that the conflict between the parents and the child was so severe that it justified the child being placed under the custody of the state, even though the parents were fit and their behavioral standards were not unreasonable.

Twenty-eight years later, families in the United States are still at risk of losing their children if the government believes it can do a better job. In 2004, a social worker hastily accused the parents of one-year-old Julia of child abuse after learning that she had suffered fifteen bone fractures in a period of five months. The parents had no previous record of abuse, the government never presented evidence that they had ever harmed their daughter, and several medical experts testified that the little girl had a brittle bone disease that was responsible for the fractures. But despite the evidence, the family court took little Julia away from her family and placed her in a foster home, citing her “best interests.” Julia remained in foster care until this past December, when her family finally won her back. She is now four-years-old, and has spent the last three years living with strangers in a foster home, but her family is overjoyed to finally welcome her home.

More recently an autistic boy was forcibly removed from his home despite the evidence being “clear that the parents have always stood by and tried to help their son.” Read about this tragic story on our blog here.

WHO DECIDES?

Julia’s happy ending was three long years in the coming – all because of government officials who claimed to act in the “best interests of the child,” without bothering to prove that Julia’s parents were unfit to raise her. Her story is a warning of the insidious sub-plot that runs through Article 9 of the CRC, which grants the government a dangerous power over the lives of its citizens.

But Julila’s story is more than just a warning. It is also a reminder that the battle for parental rights is more than just a battle to change the Constitution: it is a battle to protect real people, to save young lives that are in no danger, except from the government that claims to protect them. Innocent children and loving parents deserve far better than justice that comes three years too late.

Sources

In Re Sumey, 94 Wash. 2d 757 (Wash. S.C. 1980)

UN Convention on the Rights of the Child
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/k2crc.htm

Family wins custody battle in court
http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=647184&category=REGION&newsdate=12/14/2007

Autistic Boy Removed from his Home Because the Government Disagreed with the Parents

What’s Wrong with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child?

It’s usually looked upon as a positive means of holding countries accountable to protect children. But the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) is so much more than that.

When the UNCRC was brought up for ratification in 1995, the core group of Senators in opposition concluded that this treaty marked a significant departure from the originally constituted relationship between state and child. They found, in fact, that it was literally incompatible with the right of parents to raise their children, as well as a wholesale giveaway of U.S. sovereignty.

But why?

Widespread concerns about the UNCRC stem from the treaty’s repeated emphasis on one key principle used to guide all decisions affecting children: consideration of the “best interests of the child.” This principle underlies all of the rights found in the Convention.

Dangerous Wording

Article 3 of the CRC provides that “in all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.”

In other words, policies affecting children at all levels of society and government should have the child’s best interest as the primary concern.

The problem occurs when this principle appears as a guiding principle for parents in article 18(1), which states that “Parents or, as the case may be, legal guardians, have the primary responsibility for the upbringing and development of the child. The best interests of the child will be their basic concern.”

Who knows best?

The Convention’s emphasis on the “best interests” principle is a sharp break from American law.

In the 1993 case of Reno v. Flores, the U.S. Supreme Court held that “the ‘best interests of the child’ is not the legal standard that governs parents’ or guardians’ exercise of their custody.” In the 2000 case of Troxel v. Granville, the Court struck down a grandparent visitation statute because decisions about the child were made “solely on the judge’s determination of the child’s best interests,” without regard to the wishes of the parent.

The Court’s decisions in Reno and Troxel reflect a fundamental tenet of American family law, which recognizes that parents typically act in the best interests of their children. Indeed, “United States case law is replete with examples of parents fighting for the best interests of their children,” ranging from a child’s right to an education to the right of personal injury compensation. Except in cases where a parent has been proven to be “unfit,” American law presumes that the parent is acting in the best interests of the child, and defers to that parent’s decision.

The UNCRC’s Brave New World

But the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child changes all of that. The treaty supplants this traditional presumption in favor of parents with a new presumption in favor of the state.

According to Geraldine van Bueren, an international scholar who assisted in the drafting of the CRC, the language of “best interests provides decision and policy makers with the authority to substitute their own decisions for either the child’s or the parents’, providing it is based on considerations of the best interests of the child.”

So instead of placing the burden of proof on the government to prove that a parent is unfit, the Convention places the burden of proof on — yes, parents. Any parent who claims that other interests might just be more important than the state’s characterization of the “best interest” of the child could end up battling the state to protect their rights as a parent.

Where do we go from here?

There is a solution to this dilemma. The strongest, most effective way of protecting children and parents from an alarming state-based agenda is to amend the Constitution to protect parental rights. This can only take place through the concerted efforts of millions of dedicated parents across the United States.

Parental Right.org is doing something about it. They are working to introduce and pass just such a Constitutional amendment. For more information about their Parental Rights Amendment campaign, go here.

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.