Prop. 8 Supporters Not Happy

Share: Share on Facebook submit to reddit StumbleUpon Toolbar


( I took this video during the rallies before the vote on Proposition 8. Click on continue reading to see the other videos I took at various rallies.)


Six states will soon allow gay couples to marry with the latest being New Hampshire.

You would think that groups opposed to same sex marriage would have been pleased with the recent court ruling upholding Proposition 8 but "Save California" is very upset that the judges allowed the state to recognize the marriages of gay couples married before Proposition 8 was passed.

Click here for the press release or click on continue reading and scroll down past my videos from Proposition 8 rallies.

Supporters of gay marriage are planning on how best to bring the question to voters again. I expect it will be on the ballot again in 2010 but this time those supporting gay marriage are expected to learn from past mistakes.

I want the proposition to include clear protections for religious liberty and I want the campaign to include more gay families in their ads. If these concerns are addressed I think the momentum of more states legalizing gay marriage combined with changing views from younger generations only make this a matter of time in California.

The religious liberty issue has been interesting because so much of it is intuitive. The government is not mandating churches marry nonmembers or members of their churches that they don't want to marry. But even if the protections really only address the unwarranted concerns of some people it is worthy of including.

The Simi Valley / Moorpark Democratic Club will be debating Gay Marriage at their next meeting. Here is their announcement:

The Simi Valley/Moorpark Democratic club will be debating. Prop. 8, the initiative that banned same-sex marriage, 7pm, Wed, June l7 at the Simi Valley Library community room, 2969 Tapo Canyon Road. Panelists on both sides of the issue will be represented/

Light refreshments will be served, and a question and answer period will follow.

Please call 805-582-2234.







|
More



SAVECALIFORNIA.COM NEWS RELEASE
May 26, 2009 -- For Immediate Release

'An arm and a leg cut off marriage'
California Supreme Court upholds only half of Prop. 8

Sacramento, California -- Today's ruling by the California Supreme Court that some 18,000 homosexual "marriages" are valid, despite the vote of the people to prohibit such legal recognition, has frustrated and disappointed pro-family citizens who voted for true protection of marriage licenses for a man and a woman.

"While it was good that the majority of the justices ruled only man-woman marriages could be performed after Prop. 8 passed, it's wrong and unconstitutional for the judges to permit counterfeit marriages in clear violation of Prop. 8," said Randy Thomasson, president of SaveCalifornia.com, a statewide pro-family organization that has been fighting for natural marriage in California for more than a decade. "An arm and a leg have been cut off the natural institution of marriage in California."

Prop. 8 proponents' rebuttal arguments in the voter information guide stated: "Your YES vote on Proposition 8 means that only marriage between a man and a woman will be valid or recognized in California, regardless of when or where performed." Thomasson said, "'Regardless of when...performed' obviously means that pre-existing same-sex 'marriages' are not valid in light of Prop. 8. Why is it so hard to understand what the words 'is' and 'when' mean?"

"The judges have ignored the straightforward, retroactive effect of Prop. 8, which specified that the only valid marriage in California 'is' between a man and a woman, 'regardless of when' the marriage was performed," said Thomasson. "This is unconstitutional and unjust. The court's own rules require that the counterfeit marriages be declared null and void. But instead of respecting the clear text of Prop. 8 and by ignoring the clarifying ballot statements, the court has gone with its own feelings and its own social agenda in violation of the judges' solemn oaths to uphold the written constitution. The voters have been handed back an altered ballot."

Today's decision means every homosexual couple that wanted a "same-sex marriage" last year, got one. The decision also means some 18,000 counterfeit marriages will be held out as role models to impressionable children. "By allowing these numerous false marriages to stand, the Supreme Court is holding out to impressionable boys and girls the unnatural role model of homosexual 'marriages'" said Thomasson. "This is not what the people of California voted for. They voted to ensure that the only marriage in California is a marriage between a man and a woman."

The California Supreme Court's own rules depend on ballot arguments to determine voter intent: "In construing constitutional and statutory provisions, whether enacted by the Legislature or by initiative, the intent of the enacting body is the paramount consideration.... We are mindful that the goal of statutory construction is ascertainment of legislative intent so that the purpose of the law may be effectuated." -- In re Lance W. (1985), 37 Cal.3d at 889. Evidence of the legislative or popular intent of an enactment includes not merely the text of the amendment, but also other "indicia of voters' intent," including ballot summaries and arguments. -- Legislature v. Eu (1991) 54 Cal.3d at 504; Lance W., 37 Cal.3d at 888 n.8.

Prop. 8 was approved last fall by 52.3% of the voters. It added Section 7.5 to Article 1 of the California Constitution, reading, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." The vote of the people overruled the California Supreme Court, which, on a 4 to 3 vote, had invented "same-sex marriages" in May 2008.

SaveCalifornia.com is a leading West Coast nonprofit, nonpartisan organization representing children and families. We stand for marriage and family, parental rights, the sanctity of human life, religious freedom, financial freedom, and back-to-basics education.







|
More


5 Comments

That should be a spirited debate!

I remain confused by anti-gay marriage advocates' use of the "Marriage Is For Making Babies, Only" argument. That seems oddly... medieval.

What on earth is everyone so afraid of? I know very few openly gay people yet I have friends that are worried about gay marriage in our circle of friends. Are they worried now they will have to go to more weddings or buy gifts?

Anyone who looks to the bible to argue against homosexuality uses the book of Leviticus - check out this link for more on what Leviticus is about.

http://www.slate.com/id/2145574/entry/2145575/

By the way...... If youy are the daughter of a bible thumping anti-gay zealot - read Leviticus carefully before you consider misbehaving. Your daddy may use this verse to justify selling you into slavery..... based on the same rules handed down in Leviticus, it would be his right.... absurd isn't it?

SONNET 116

Let me not to the marriage of true minds
Admit impediments. Love is not love
Which alters when it alteration finds,
Or bends with the remover to remove:
O no! it is an ever-fixed mark
That looks on tempests and is never shaken;
It is the star to every wandering bark,
Whose worth's unknown, although his height be taken.
Love's not Time's fool, though rosy lips and cheeks
Within his bending sickle's compass come:
Love alters not with his brief hours and weeks,
But bears it out even to the edge of doom.
If this be error and upon me proved,
I never writ, nor no man ever loved.

I will actually have to read the bible to argue with my religious friends! Thanx for the input!

Leave a comment

Brian Dennert here

This blog is devoted to the nuts and bolts of local politics.

Have some political Info you want released? Let me know! I want to publicize fundraisers, parties, Web sites, meetup.com events and anything else happening in Ventura County. So, send them to briandennert@yahoo.com.

  • kim: I will actually have to read the bible to argue read more
  • Harold Godwin: SONNET 116 Let me not to the marriage of true read more
  • Jason Oliver: Anyone who looks to the bible to argue against homosexuality read more
  • Kim: What on earth is everyone so afraid of? I know read more
  • Packherd: That should be a spirited debate! I remain confused by read more