Posted on Mon, 01/02/2006 - 00:42 — by Ohso
Turkey Baster Creationist Courts:
The recent 'reporting' by the myopic seeing eye 'watchdogs' of our Old Media of New Laws and Important / Milestone events in the Radical Gender Feminist / Homosex 'Cannibal Soup' Pander or Perish Pogrom (where one either joins voluntarily as a diner, or involuntarily as dinner), including the Attack on Marriage and Male Fathers, is interesting if only for the significance of what it fails to include or explain, and why
Sitting like the veritable Elephant in the Middle of the Press Room are numerous issues that our myopic watchdogs of the Fourth Estate of government (Executive, Legislative, Judicial & Tabloid branches) have decided it is better to largely ignore, or spin only in small sound bites.
For Example; a new flood of Pro-Homosex Pander or Perish Laws, passed like sewer gas by the leftist / radical gender feminist / pro-homosex organ that is the Democrap controlled Weimar Kalifornia Legislature, and signed by our RINO Uberkommandant - Der Arnold, are now ready for Ruthless Enforcement by the Thought Police, BAMN (by Any means Necessary!).
When they actually do mention such Pander or Perish pogroms, the media euphemistically refers to them as anti-discrimination Laws - such as when Pro -Family / Religious / Childrens bookstores are required to hire and publicly promote homo-anal dirty diaper sado masochistic bondage flogging activists as normal and healthy & proper employee representatives.
However, the combination of Monumental Importance and Studied Media Ignorance / Biased Reporting found in the California Turkey Baster Trio of Cases, simultaneously published by the Misandrist (male hating) disgrace of a state supreme court on August 22, 2005 (K.M., v. E.G.: S125643 / Elisa B.v. Superior Court ; S125912 / Kristine H. v. Lisa R.: S126945) - highlights like no other story the same old story of Pro-Homosex propagandizing in service of Misandry (Hatred of Men) that is a media staple year in and male hating year out.
Built on a foundation created by decades of hyper zealous radical Mau Mauing by Dyke (Dyke = Hyper Militant Misandrist) Hatemongers and their allies, as well as ruthless censorship, silencing and punishment of opposition through use of Thought Policing tactics Stalin would admire, these cases represent nothing less than endorsement of Dyke Separatist / Neo-Exterminationist Misandry as State Policy by the California Supreme Court.
It seeks to enshrine in the law a Double Standard Against MEN So Bizarre that it is destroyed by the very contradictions in internal logic of the argument presented; not that this hinders or even mildly embarrasses the Court in its rush to Pander. Stepping through the warped looking glass sold the Court by the twisted systerhood of Separatist / Neo-Exterminationist Dyke Hatemongers, it is easy to see the results of decades of Radical Homosex Indoctrination in the Legal profession, particularly the pathetic farce of rank Misandry that characterizes the Gender field of Legal Education.
But for the student of both science and the law, it is the Courts rending of both in to tattered shreds to shroud its disgrace, that so astounds and bemuses. Long story short - The California Supreme Court has Defined Fatherhood for All Time and it has Nothing to Do with being MALE!
In Fact, in the opinion of Californias Supreme Judges - to be Fatherless is to lack a proper source of Financial Support, and Not a Man who is your Daddy. They have therefore logically deduced that while children may Not Have Three Parents (why, they dont really say), the same children May Have Two Dykes and No Daddy, even if (as in one case) they are Siblings who were intended at conception to be biologically related to each other through the Non-Father/ donor:
"We rejected the suggestion of amicus curiae that both the wife and the surrogate could be the childs mother, stating that a child can have only one mother, but what we considered and rejected in Johnson was the argument that a child could have three parents: a father and two mothers. We did not address the question presented in this case of whether a child could have two parents, both of whom are women." Elisa B. case.
Mind you now - this is Not about Adoption, but rather courts redefining ˜Natural" Parenting (we recognized in In re Nicholas H., supra, 28 Cal.4th 56, that natural as used in the UPA does not always mean biological).
Future posts will discuss in greater detail the language of the decision, and the blatant Rejection of Definitive DNA Science (a legacy of the Adoption of Michael H. (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1043 case) in favor of validating the desire of Dykes to Legally Exterminate Men as Fathers - relegating them to the role of un-gendered insemination sources without any parental rights to their children.
In essence The Sperm Donor is Not a Father (and has No Legal Liability) if he does not touch the woman with his penis, and instead uses a Deadbeat Dad Factory / Sperm Bank as intermediary in his desire to produce as many children as possible without any responsibility for them:
As the supreme Turkey Baster Court said: "the California Legislature has afforded unmarried as well as married women a statutory vehicle for obtaining semen for artificial insemination without fear that the donor may claim paternity, and has likewise provided men with a statutory vehicle for donating semen to married and unmarried women alike without fear of liability for child support." (Jhordan C. v. Mary K. (1986)
BUT - and as they say in fashion circles, this is a big but, if the Man Engages in Normal Heterosexual Relations (what they call in Law School Rape because they teach that women are mentally incapable of consenting to Heterosex), even if he Did Not Want Children and was deliberately Lied to by the mother - Well, Use a Penis, Go to Jail is just the new truth de jour in Dyke-topia.
Or as the state supreme court said: "Usually, whether there is evidence of a parent and child relationship under the UPA does not depend upon the intent of the parent. For example, a man who engages in sexual intercourse with a woman who assures him, falsely, that she is incapable of conceiving children is the father of a resulting child, despite his lack of intent to become a father." K.M. v. E. G. 2005.
There you have it in a nutshell INTENT to Procreate Doesnt Matter - For a Man. 'Donate' as many children as you Want to create, just so long as you dont actually touch the womyn.
Touch her, and it doesnt matter what you intended or what she told you was true - liability is unlimited, and the choice whether to make a Man a Father of a Child, or abort a fetus, is hers alone.
By contrast to the treatment of Intentional Deadbeat Donors, consider how the supreme court treats womyn in analogous situation: "A woman who supplies ova to be used to impregnate her lesbian partner, with the understanding that the resulting child will be raised in their joint home, cannot waive her responsibility to support that child. Nor can such a purported waiver effectively cause that woman to relinquish her parental rights." K.M. V. E. G. 2005.
The majoritys rule validates such agreements when its conditions are satisfied -conditions that include the fact the parties to the agreement Must Be Dykes. Or, as a dissent by one justice read:
"Although the majority denies that its rule depends on sexual orientation the opinion speaks for itself; The majority has chosen to use the term lesbian no less than six times in articulating its holding. Moreover, the majority prevents future courts from applying its holding automatically to persons other than lesbians. I see no rational basis, and the majority articulates none for permitting the enforceability of an ovum donation agreement to depend on the sexual orientation of the parties. Indeed, lacking a rational basis, the rule may well violate equal protection."
Violate Equal Protection! Gosh, how did they ever come up with that one?
After all, California would have to change its Official State Policy of Punishing and Censoring discussion of the topic of Discrimination against the Despised and Disposable Male Minority, just for the rest of us (Males) to be allowed to talk about equal protection...
And I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for such a sea change either.
Best keep quiet about it though wouldnt want to spread any "Ism- Obia"now would we? What with everything else going around and all...
Ohso. "Not merely the validity of experience but the very existence of external reality was tacitly denied by their philosophy the heresy of heresies was common sense." George Orwell - 1984 On the Thought Police.
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 762
IVA:
The latest thing being outsourced to India is child-bearing. More and more healthy, career-oriented foreign women are renting wombs from poor Indian women to bear children for them so they do not have to put their jobs on hold to have a baby.
In one district alone, more than 50 economically deprived women are carrying children for foreigners and non-resident Indians, each for a $5,000 payoff.
(Outsourcing Wombs in India)
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 762
Yes, it's OK to homeschool in California A statewide and nationwide message for parents from Campaign for Children and Families President Randy Thomasson
When three Los Angeles judges ordered a family to stop homeschooling on Feb. 28, there was great cause for alarm. The next day, in the WorldNetDaily article breaking the news, I blasted the judges for "actively separating children from their parents."
The ruling is so alarming because the state appeals court judges actually wrote that "parents do not have a constitutional right to home school their children." The judges said that parents without teaching credentials cannot teach.
This ruling is a radical slam against homeschooling. Making it more crazy, the judge who authored the ruling says he's a Presbyterian elder! Learn more > March 7 Focus on the Family broadcast describing the situation > March 7 advisory statement from Private & Home Educators of California > March 6 update from Home School Legal Defense Association > The Feb. 28, 2008 ruling (18-page PDF)
Despite this intolerant, anti-parent ruling, California homeschoolers must not panic. Homeschooling is still legal in California. Some mainstream media outlets are reporting the story in a way to scare -- not help -- homeschool parents and parents who are exploring homeschooling. Therefore, Campaign for Children and Families is urging the following:
California homeschooling families should continue homeschooling, and parents who are considering homeschooling as a way to exit the immoral government school system should continue with their plans to achieve educational freedom. Here's why:
California state law allows parents without a credential or license to homeschool their own children. This law has not changed and is not likely to change. The only thing that has changed is that some bureaucrats may now use this court ruling to selectively persecute homeschool parents.
How should homeschoolers adjust at this stage of the battle? To prevent new harassment resulting from this terrible ruling, we recommend that each homeschool family purchase guaranteed legal representation from HSLDA for only $115 per year. HSLDA will use the U.S. Supreme Court rulings and California statutes to fight to protect your right to homeschool. Click here to join HSLDA
Here are the facts:
1. Only one family was ordered to stop homeschooling: The Feb. 28 order is limited to one family in Los Angeles which has a 20-year history of litigation in the juvenile courts over the care of their children. This ruling is not likely to be applied to other homeschooling families on a massive scale unless the California Supreme Court upholds it on appeal.
2. California state law permitting homeschooling has not changed: For example, Education Code, Section 48222 states, "Children who are being instructed in a private full-time day school by persons capable of teaching shall be exempted" from the requirement to enroll in government schools. There is no requirement that parents must have a teaching credential in order to teach their children.
Private & Home Educators of California and Family Protection Ministries states the following in their excellent legal fact sheet:
Home educators may establish a private school, based in their home, and must file a private school affidavit with the Superintendent of Public Instruction of California, normally between October 1st and 15th every school year (see Filing A Private School Affidavit at www.pheofca.org.) Children enrolled in a private school are exempt from attendance in a public school. Under this provision [E.C. 48222 and 33190], the following requirements apply to all private schools:
a. The instructors must be capable of teaching. b. The instruction must be in English (see the reverse side of this paper for non-English speaking families). c. The instruction must be in the several branches of study required in public schools. d. Certain pupil and school records must be on file. e. Health Department forms (PM 171A and PM 286B) must be on file. [H.S.C. 124085 and 120375]
Source: Homeschooling in California: Legal Fact Sheet
3. This bad ruling is a new tool for Child Protective Services to harm good parents: Some anti-family bureaucrats may try to use the appeals court ruling against homeschool parents they don’t like. Therefore, every California homeschool family needs to join the Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA). This is "homeschool insurance" which, for only $115 per year, purchases legal representation (including all attorney fees, expert witness fees, court transcript cost, travel expenses, and all other permissible court costs) for a homeschooling family should they ever be harassed by a government official. HSLDA has an excellent track record of winning for homeschooling families. Learn more and sign up today
4. HSLDA is working to make this bad ruling non-binding: There is a process to ask the California Supreme Court to "depublish" a lower court ruling. Such an order would mean this awful ruling is limited to only the facts in the case, is not binding precedent, and that the family of Phillip and Mary Long would be the only family affected. In addition to this depublishing effort, the case is expected to be appealed to the California Supreme Court. > Read what HSLDA is doing > Add your name to the court record asking that this bad ruling be depublished
So, bottom line, keep homeschooling! The outrage over this terrible court ruling is growing. Along with CCF and others, Arnold Schwarzenegger has issued a news release condemning it. > March 7 Schwarzenegger release > March 7 Campaign for Children and Families release
Parents who are concerned about immorality in the government schools should continue with their plans to do homeschooling or to enroll in church school. Here's how: > Visit www.RescueYourChild.org > How to withdraw your child from public school
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 762
ENDA the House Debate (FRC)
Last night, after over five hours of debate, the House finally held a much-anticipated vote on the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), comfortably passing it 235-184. While the Democractic leadership was quick to claim it as an historic victory, its key constituency on the issue appeared almost disappointed by the outcome.
Matt Foreman, the executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, made no bones about his frustration, saying, "What should have been one of the most triumphant days in our movement's history is not."
Like others in the homosexual movement, he realizes that the bill's isn't likely to survive a presidential veto--and even if it were, Foreman and others are still seething that the current version no longer contains special protections for transgenders.
Throughout the night, several conservatives, including Rep. Mark Souder (R-Ind.)--an FRC True Bluer--tried desperately to hold the line on the bill. Rep. Souder, who was one of the most outspoken opponents, argued that religious rights shouldn't "be trumped by sexual 'rights'." He went on to call the bill a "disaster" that "invited litigation and set precedents we will regret."
In the end, 25 Democrats were persuaded to vote against the bill, but 35 Republicans more than made up for it by joining the leftwing majority. The bill now heads to the Senate, where Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) promises to introduce it before year's end.
Additional Resources
The Majority's ENDA Problem: Freedom of Religion, Meet Free Flow of Litigation
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 762
Liberty Counsel Files Brief At California Supreme Court in Landmark Marriage Cases
San Francisco, CA – Yesterday, Liberty Counsel filed a brief at the California Supreme Court in a nationally significant case that will ultimately either protect or destroy the definition of marriage, which has always been the union between one man and one woman. Liberty Counsel’s brief argues that the fundamental constitutional right to marry includes rights and obligations that cannot be eliminated because they come from the inherent nature of marriage as the union of one man and one woman, rather than from a state-sanctioned union of any two people who love each other.
Fifteen amicus briefs have been submitted in support of Liberty Counsel’s position in Thomasson v. Newsom. Liberty Counsel represents Campaign for California Families. One amicus brief filed in support of Liberty Counsel’s arguments was submitted by the African American Pastors of California, which states: “The analogy to racial discrimination is not only false, it is destructive.â€
Speaking on behalf of those who have experienced real discrimination, the African American Pastors’ brief states that “Marriage is not a ‘socially constructed’ relationship rooted only in the law or in the social or religious conventions of the society in which it is recognized. Nor is it simply a ‘committed relationship’ with a person of one’s choice. The union of a man and a woman in marriage is, and always has been, the fundamental building block upon which families, communities and entire societies are built.â€
On the other hand, an amicus brief asking the California Supreme Court to strike down the marriage law declared that “a high court’s message can have a proselytizing and sobering effect, converting an impetuous popular mind into one more receptive to reason.†This brief urges the Court to become an activist engine for social change by undermining the will of the people. Liberty Counsel’s brief responded to a total of forty-five amicus briefs, including the one just quoted.
Mathew D. Staver, Founder of Liberty Counsel and Dean of Liberty University School of Law, commented: “Virtually every court that has considered challenges to traditional marriage has correctly concluded that the matter of marriage should be decided by the people, not by the courts. Courts are not proselytizing engines of radical social change. Marriage between one man and one woman is an historically shared value that transcends time. Untying the knot that holds together traditional marriage will unravel the family, destabilize the culture, and hurt children.â€
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 762
** The most important language contained in the proposed initiative is: "A man is an adult male human being who possesses at least one inherited Y chromosome, and a woman is an adult female human being who does not possess an inherited Y chromosome. "
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
VOTEYESMARRIAGE.COM CAMPAIGN UPDATE
Aiming for California's November 2008 ballot VoteYesMarriage.com constitutional marriage amendment is the ONLY way to save marriage in California. Do your part today to save America from California...because time is running out!
IN THIS TIMELY UPDATE:
• Where we stand
• The 14 deficient words of Proposition 22
• You can't protect marriage by just protecting the word "marriage"
• Comparing a strong marriage amendment to a very weak one
• Your response
"Individuals in loving same-sex relationships have waited years, sometimes several decades, for a chance to wed, yearning to obtain the public validation that only marriage can give."
-- California Supreme Court Justice Joyce Kennard
"The idea that marriage-like rights without marriage are adequate smacks of a concept long rejected by the courts: separate but equal."
-- San Francisco Judge Richard Kramer
"We perceive no reason why both parents of a child cannot be women."
-- California Supreme Court Justice Carlos Moreno, writing for the court majority
"The person or persons who will save marriage in California are financially blessed, very concerned that everything about marriage be protected for a man and a woman, and eager to generously donate to save this sacred institution for future generations."
-- The VoteYesMarriage.com Campaign
Dear Friend of Marriage:
There is rising anticipation that the California Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the "marriage cases" this January when the court convenes at its home base of San Francisco.
If so, the high court's decision to license same-sex "marriages" and impose them on every community statewide could come as soon as April 2008. We're making this prediction because a majority of the seven justices already support the notion of "gay and lesbian marriages," and have shown no reluctance to redefine the natural family. (See the above quotes from Justices Kennard and Moreno.)
Obviously, Californians must override the judges…and the politicians. For the sake of future generations, we must protect everything about marriage -- marriage licenses, marriage rights, and all legal aspects of marriage -- for one man and one woman in the California State Constitution. But only one California Marriage Amendment will accomplish this: the VoteYesMarriage.com amendment.
Where we stand
Here is where the VoteYesMarriage.com campaign stands right now:
• With the California Supreme Court expected to destroy the civil definition of marriage in the first half of 2008, the VoteYesMarriage.com campaign is persevering and is now aiming for the November 2008 ballot to override the judges and politicians all at once.
How it works: Filing an initiative means that 50 days later a title and summary is issued. Under state law, you now have 150 days to collect over a million or more signatures. The earlier in the year that paid signatures can be collected, the higher up on the ballot a proposition is listed. It's a race with a deadline; therefore it's prudent to raise your funds ahead of time. Initiative campaigns need to meet or exceed their signature goal to succeed. Most initiatives fall short due to not enough funds for professional signature gathering.
• On October 1, the VoteYesMarriage.com campaign filed our rock-solid language with the California Attorney General.
• On November 1, VoteYesMarriage.com refiled our VoteYesMarriage.com amendment with the Attorney General.
• In September, a poll of 800 California "likely voters" found that, if same-sex "marriages" are licensed in California, more voters would support the VoteYesMarriage.com amendment than oppose it. This is very encouraging, because support for natural marriage will only rise when the California Supreme Court destroys marriage in the first half of 2008. Shocked voters will ask "how did this happen?" and "what can be done?" With the voters awakened and energized, the VoteYesMarriage.com amendment can pass with majority support.
It's wonderful that VoteYesMarriage.com has a fighting chance to finally protect ALL of marriage for one man and one woman. Our opportunity to authentically protect marriage for future generations has arrived. Our chance will come, of course, when the California Supreme Court drops its "bomb" in early 2008, and the voters respond. Thankfully, the VoteYesMarriage.com amendment, the only California marriage amendment that will truly protect marriage, can pass. And it must pass...for the sake of future generations.
The 14 deficient words of Proposition 22How can we fully and permanently protect marriage in California? It's a question on the minds of many pro-family citizens.
We already know that we must override the judges and the politicians by writing, qualifying, and passing a state constitutional marriage amendment. But that's only part of the answer. The legal effect of an initiative -- HOW it's written, and WHAT IT WILL DO once the court challenges have concluded -- is what ultimately matters.
The lessons of the last several years provide the answer of how to write what will be the first, and likely the last, California constitutional marriage amendment.
You must remember history.
You must debate facts.
You must test claims of truth.
Then it will be easy to understand what kind of amendment will truly protect marriage for one man and one woman.
We already know some key facts:
1. In 2000, Californians voted to protect marriage for a man and a woman. Proposition 22, a statutory initiative but not a constitutional amendment, read, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."
2. From 2001 through 2004, the Democrat-controlled California Legislature systematically awarded all the rights of marriage to homosexual partners, creating "same-sex marriage by another name." This is why today in California homosexual couples have ALL the rights of marriage, and have left marriage between a man and a woman a mere word with no exclusive legal value.
3. In 2005, the California courts ruled that the 14-word text of Proposition 22 only protected the word "marriage" but NOT the rights of marriage. The court said the too-brief text of Prop. 22 did not specifically protect marriage rights, which therefore allowed the State Legislature to pass AB 205, which created Section 297.5 of the Family Code, which awarded virtually all the rights of marriage to homosexual partners:
"Because the plain, unambiguous language of Proposition 22 is concerned only with who is entitled to obtain the status of marriage, and not with the rights and obligations associated with marriage, section 297.5 (which does not grant the legal status of marriage to registered domestic partners) does not add to, or take away from, Proposition 22."
-- Knight v. Superior Court, 128 Cal. App.4th 14, 26 (2005)
That same year, a California judge rationalized that same-sex "marriages" must be legalized, because the Legislature and the Governor had already awarded all the rights and benefits of marriage to homosexuals:
"Simply put, same-sex marriage cannot be prohibited solely because California has always done so before…The idea that marriage-like rights without marriage is adequate smacks of a concept long rejected by the courts: separate but equal."
-- San Francisco Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer (2005)
4. Therefore, because it explicitly states in its text that the rights, incidents, and benefits of marriage are only for a married husband and wife, the VoteYesMarriage.com amendment is the ONLY way to fully and permanently protect marriage for one man and one woman in California . Unlike other proposals, the VoteYesMarriage.com amendment securely protects marriage from all attacks -- past, present, and future.
Backed by pro-family constitutional attorneys, the VoteYesMarriage.com amendment has the clear, legal language that will satisfy the courts that the people have voted to protect marriage rights for one man and one woman, once and for all. It's full and permanent marriage protection.
You can't protect marriage by just protecting the word "marriage"
Unfortunately, some well-intentioned folks mistakenly believe that placing the 14 deficient words of Proposition 22 into the California Constitution will somehow protect marriage. But that's denying the facts about the past, present, and future.
• Fact about the past: Proposition 22 placed these 14 words into the California Family Code: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." Yet this too-short sentence left marriage an empty shell. As the courts have pointed out, Prop. 22 didn't protect marriage rights, marriage benefits, or the moral consciences of businesses, nonprofits and churches. After Proposition 22 passed in 2000, the California Legislature systematically passed a raft of bills that created pseudo-marriages by awarding every marriage right to homosexual couples. The Legislature has forced state contractors and insurance carriers to subsidize homosexual "marriage" benefits. Meanwhile, the California Supreme Court has forced businesses that are open to the public to undermine marriage. Those 14 words of Prop. 22 DID NOT and WILL NOT protect marriage in California, even if they're in the State Constitution.
• Fact about the present: We need no other example for the need to protect everything about marriage -- marriage licenses, marriage rights, and all legal aspects of marriage -- than this year's SB 11. This marriage-destroying bill by San Francisco state senator Carol Migden proposed to award all the rights and benefits of marriage to a man and a woman who are shacking up yet still refuse to get married. Giving everything that belongs to marriage to unmarried individuals would make marriage unpopular and antiquated in the eyes of future generations. SB 11 would functionally abolish marriage. This bill passed the California State Senate this year before stalling in late August, but it will certainly return, as soon as next year. Do you see why we must protect marriage rights and marriage benefits in order to fully and permanently protect marriage?
• Fact about the future: Not only would placing the 14 words of Prop. 22 into the Constitution continue to leave marriage an empty shell devoid of any exclusive legal value, protecting only the word "marriage" will allow the government to someday create a gender-neutral definition of male and female, create polygamous marriages, or completely abolish marriage as a civil institution. Consider that if the government can redefine "parent" and "marriage," there's no stopping them without the clear, specific words of the VoteYesMarriage.com amendment in the California Constitution -- plain, straight-forward language that will protect EVERYTHING about marriage and permit ZERO wiggle-room for judges. This is why spending time and money to protect only the word "marriage," or placing the 14 deficient words of Prop. 22 into the California Constitution, is a complete waste of resources.
Comparing a strong marriage amendment to a very weak one
In the last few years, there have been two dominant ideas about how to protect marriage in California. One proposal is to protect only the word "marriage" by placing the 14 words of Proposition 22 into the California State Constitution. Those words, which sound good but don't do much, are "Only marriage between a man and woman are valid or recognized in California." Yet this phrase will not protect marriage because it's full of holes as has already been shown.
In contrast, the rock-solid VoteYesMarriage.com amendment would protect EVERYTHING about marriage -- marriage licenses, marriage rights, and all legal aspects of marriage -- for only one man and one woman. VoteYesMarriage.com protects marriage past, present, and future.
Here are the clear, precise, and important words that VoteYesMarriage.com would place into the California State Constitution:
Only marriage between one man and one woman is valid or recognized in California, whether contracted in this state or elsewhere. A man is an adult male human being who possesses at least one inherited Y chromosome, and a woman is an adult female human being who does not possess an inherited Y chromosome.
Neither the Legislature nor any court, government institution, government agency, initiative statute, local government, or government official shall abolish the civil institution of marriage between one man and one woman, or decrease statutory rights, incidents, or employee benefits of marriage shared by one man and one woman, or require private entities to offer or provide rights, incidents, or benefits of marriage to unmarried individuals, or bestow statutory rights, incidents, or employee benefits of marriage on unmarried individuals. Any public act, record, or judicial proceeding, from within this state or another jurisdiction, that violates this section is void and unenforceable.
A brief comparison of two ideas to protect marriage in California
Protect only the word "marriage"
Yes
No*
Yes
No
from being forced to undermine marriage
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
* Even if the word "marriage" were placed into the California State Constitution, that would not prohibit the California Legislature from statutorily redefining "man" and "woman" as anything-goes "gender." It wouldn't stop politicians from allowing polygamous marriages because "a man" and "a woman" do not define a clear one man/one woman numerical cap. And it certainly wouldn't prevent the California Legislature from eventually abolishing marriage as a civil institution, as is being proposed in New York State. Consider California's gender-bending definition already in the state's Penal, Civil, Government, and Education codes: "Gender" means sex, and includes a person's gender identity and gender related appearance and behavior whether or not stereotypically associated with the person's assigned sex at birth. Is this the future definition of bride and groom?
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 762
Here Goes 'Mutton': Dolly Creator Rejects Cloning (FRC)
This past weekend, the movement to ban cloning got some help from an unlikely source--the scientist most famous for attempting it. Professor Ian Wilmut, the creator of Dolly the sheep, publicly announced his decision to abandon "therapeutic cloning" and turn his attention to pro-life alternatives such as those being perfected in Japan with adult stem cells.
He believes the "socially acceptable" approach "represents the future for stem cell research," rather than the nuclear transfer method he and his team used 10 years ago in creating Dolly. Although Wilmut was given the go-ahead to pursue human cloning in 2005, the professor has since declined.
His decision, on the heels of last week's news that scientists had successfully cloned primates, should put a serious damper on any enthusiasm for projects that require the creation and destruction of cloned embryos.
For all of the hype surrounding the monkey breakthrough, a couple of key details were lost on the media. For starters, the team leader of the Oregon primate program, Dr. Shoukhrat Mitalipov, admitted that the "efficiency is low" for the research and it is "not yet a cost effective medical option."
Also, some reports estimated that it took over 15,000 monkey eggs to yield just two lines of embryonic stem cells, only one of which is normal. Meanwhile, as scientists waste precious time and resources on a procedure that the majority of the world considers morally unacceptable, pro-life alternatives are effectively treating everything from juvenile diabetes to spinal cord injuries--without the ethical headache.
We can only hope that Wilmut's conversion will pull the wool from the eyes of the public, which should result in Congress turning away from spending more taxpayer money on embryonic stem cell research that is both unethical and ineffective.
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 762
Gut and Amend the Bait
In Weimar Kalifornia the tactic discussed below is known as "Gut and Amend" - and is frequently used for 'Pander or Perish' Bills put through at the last minute by the Democrap Power Machine in a legislature truly not fit to pass gas...
Where it is not only perfectly legal - but quite the rage amongst all the Hate Baiting Lavender Mafiosa and their Coprophile Allies.
Ohso
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Bait and Switch Doesn't Fool Court (FRC)
In a ruling that reads more like a reprimand of the Pennsylvania legislature, the Commonwealth Court has struck down a five-year-old expansion of the state's "hate crimes" laws by a 4-1 vote.
The suit was brought by Repent America, whose members were arrested in 2004 after they showed up in opposition to a Philadelphia street festival for homosexuals.
Fearing that they would be arrested again for future protests, they argued that the law was unconstitutional--not only because it creates special protections for people based on their sexual orientation, but also because of the political stunt pulled by the legislature to enact it.
Initially, the bill was meant to punish agricultural vandalism, but liberals gutted the proposal at the last minute to include controversial protections for homosexuals.
As such, the court ruled that it violated Article III of the Pennsylvania Constitution, which says that a bill cannot be rewritten in the course of its passage.
"No bill shall be altered or amended... as to change its original purpose." Although state laws typically "enjoy a strong presumption of constitutionality," as Judge James Colins wrote, the legislature attempted to impose the policy on voters without their knowledge or input. We applaud the court for using the state's Constitution, not the prevailing political winds, as its guide in overturning this outrageous abuse of power.
Edited 11/19/2007 11:16 pm ET by Ohso1
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 762
In Convenient Truthiness
For those very few not already aware of it, if only by living in a cave with no contact to the Old Media, the supreme 'sacrament' of the Radical Gender Feminist lobby is the right to choose - to kill children who become inconvenient. ]
This 'right' was first clearly established in a Turkey Baster Court Case that is now a Radical Feminist Icon - except of course that no one is permitted to discuss the real facts of the case because it would be Ungood to say that "Roe v. Wade" is a fraud based on a bogus scam of false rape claims.
While it is known in the Old Media as "Roe v. Wade" - the Plaintiff was (and still is - seeing as she is still alive) a woman named Norma McCorvey, who gave birth to a Live Daughter who knows what it is to be hated, as her death had been desired by more 'Womyn's' advocates than any other - at least up until Reagan and Bush of course...
Anywayyy... In order to garner sympathy for her decisions - first to become deliberately pregnant as a means of manipulating her boyfriend to marry her; and later to kill the child when plan A failed... Norma McCorvey Fabricated an entirely False Claim of Gang Rape - which was used by her Radical Gender Feminist Handlers like a sledge hammer through out the process.
However - as a fate unkind to radical feminist propagandists would have it - Both Women are alive and Both Women are Opponents of Abortion... Which is partly why its partisans try to distance and disavow Norma - and also still stick pins in replicas of Her Daughter.
NOT that anyone is allowed talk about such things in school mind you, as 'tolerance' must trump 'truthiness' or Ungood will be loosed in the world...
And just we cant have that now can we???
Ohso
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. George Orwell
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Heisman Winner Makes Forward Progress on Life (FRC)
According to his mom, football sensation Tim Tebow came very close to missing his run at the Heisman Trophy. Pam Tebow says it wasn't because of his performance, but because her doctors had advised the couple to abort him.
Back in the '80s, when she and her husband Bob were in the mission field, Pam was diagnosed with a medical condition that could only be treated with drugs that risked harming her unborn child. To avoid "irreparable damage" to her baby, doctors suggested that she abort the future Heisman winner.
She refused. Today, Pam, Bob, and the entire University of Florida football team are glad she didn't. Despite the doctor's prediction, Tim was born completely healthy--and remains so. In his acceptance speech for the Heisman, Tim said, "I just (want) to first start off by thanking my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, who gave me the ability to play football, gave me a great family and support group..."
Sadly, not every unborn child is as fortunate as Tim.
For every baby like him, whose parents embrace the gift of life, there are countless others whose lives are ended before they begin, all in the name of "choice."
Of the 49 million who never lived to realize their potential, imagine the number of future leaders, inventors, doctors--and, yes, even Heisman trophy winners--among them. We are grateful to the Tebow family for sharing their testimony and pray that it helps persuade other women of the inherent value of their unborn children and the great promise that lies within.
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 762
Florida Marriage Protection Amendment Certified for 2008 Ballot www.LC.org
In November, Florida voters will have the opportunity to vote on an amendment to guarantee that marriage in that state remains the union of one man and one woman.
The Florida Marriage Protection Amendment has now received more than the required 611,009 certified signatures needed to be placed on the November 2008 ballot. The number of signatures is more than any gathered thus far for marriage amendments in other states.
The marriage amendment states: "Inasmuch as marriage is the legal union of only one man and one woman, no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized." The language of the amendment was drafted by Mat and Anita Staver and is designed to protect marriage as one man and one woman.
In January 2006, Mat Staver presented oral argument in defense of the language, and on March 23, 2006, the Florida Supreme Court in a 7-0 opinion rejected the ACLU’s challenge to the marriage amendment.
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 762
GOP Holds Leadership in Contempt (FRC)
So much for peace and goodwill toward the President's men. As promised, the Senate Judiciary Committee today approved resolutions that hold Karl Rove and Josh Bolton in contempt of Congress for ignoring the committee's subpoenas on the firings of nine U.S. attorneys last year. However, what's truly "criminal" is that Chairman Pat Leahy (R-Vt.) insists on putting this investigative witch hunt ahead of pressing committee business, such as filling judicial vacancies.
While he and his liberal friends dawdle on a case that has run its congressional course, America's courts are still in a state of judicial emergency.
]]
More than 45 nominees still await their hearings, which is yet another failure of this leadership to deliver on its promises.
As White House Press Secretary Dana Perino said yesterday, "Democrats have ensured that they will be remembered for pointless investigations instead of much-needed legislation."...
Although Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and company insist that they are most concerned with the well-being of children, it's obvious that playing partisan politics is their real priority.
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 762
Activist 'banned for life' from criticizing homosexuality - Offending pamphlets quoted ad: 'Man seeking boys ... age not so relevant' 12/15/07 http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59217
A lifetime ban on public criticism of homosexuality was upheld against a Catholic activist in Canada by his province's superior court.
Bill Whatcott was fined 17,500 Canadian dollars by the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission in a complaint by four homosexuals
who charged he "injured" their "feelings" and "self respect" in pamphlets denouncing the "gay lifestyle" as immoral and dangerous, Lifesite News reported.
Saskatchewan's Court of Queens Bench, which hears criminal and civil
cases, upheld a 2006 decision Tuesday by the provincial Human Rights
Commission.
"This fine is for telling the truth [that] homosexual sodomites can
change their behavior and be set free from their sin and depravity
through the forgiveness of sins and shed blood of our Lord and Savior
Jesus Christ," Whatcott said. A licensed practical nurse, Whatcott regularly campaigns against the political movement that is rapidly advancing homosexual rights in the Canadian legal system, LifeSiteNews said.
"Shame on the Saskatchewan Court of Queens Bench for pandering to homosexual activism and ignoring the truth," he said.
The provincial Human Rights Commission noted Whatcott was "ordered to
discontinue distributing any materials that promote hatred against
people because of their sexual orientation."
The tribunal held that "preventing the distribution of such materials was a reasonable limit on Whatcott's right to freedom of religion and expression as guaranteed by Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms."
Whatcott says his pamphlets used "verbatim" a text from a classified personal advertisement in a local homosexual publication that said, "Man seeking boys … age not so relevant."
LifeSiteNews noted Ottawa Citizen columnist David Warren criticized the tribunals as "kangaroo courts" and "star chambers" with "quasi- legal powers that should be offensive to the citizens of any free country ... in which the defendant's right to due process is withdrawn."
A petition to Prime Minister Stephen Harper is being circulated calling for abolishment, or at least curtailment, of the powers of the commissions.
Last month, a Canadian political party leader's posting of a WND
article on homosexuality brought him before the country's Human
Rights Commission to face accusations he was motivated by "hate and
defamation."
Ron Gray of the Christian Heritage Party said he was told directly by
an employee of the Human Rights Commission that the Canadian Human
Rights Act, under which he is being accused, is "about censorship."
Two of the three complaints filed by Edmonton man Rob Wells relate to
the posting of an April 2002 WND story titled "Report: Pedophilia
more common among 'gays.'"
The third complaint against Gray is for several commentaries he wrote
and distributed to party members. One, titled "Sitcom prophet,"
compared the current climate of debate about homosexuality in Canada
to the "Cone of Silence" in the 1960s-era television comedy "Get
Smart."
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 762
NORTHERN EXPOSURE
Bible standards attacked in 'bastardized courts'
Homosexual advocates claim hurt feelings, demand penalties
By Bob Unruh © 12/25 2007 WorldNetDaily.com
Biblical standards are under attack by the "bastardized courts" of Canada, where activists who claim they have "hurt feelings" are demanding – and getting – penalties imposed against those who oppose the homosexual lifestyle, according to a family organization.
The description of the courts, also known as the provincial and national Human Rights Commissions, comes from the Canada Family Action Coalition, which has addressed the problem in an alert to its constituents, and warns the United States is not that far from having similar assaults on traditional family values.
"It has become apparent in the past month how badly the acts are written and how they are being misused to violate the rights of Canadians," the organization said.
"We today have a major national magazine, a federal political party leader and a registered political party, a major Catholic newspaper (Catholic Insight) and an internationally renowned journalist all of whom are being investigated by appointed 'hate speech therapists' from the commissions," the group said.
The journalist is Mark Steyn, according to CFAC spokesman Brian Rushfeldt, and the newest case involves Canada's national Catholic magazine of news, opinion and analysis.
The publication has been told it is being targeted by a complaint from Edmonton resident Rob Wells, who alleges the publication has offended homosexuals.
(Story continues below)
The magazine's editor, Father Alphonse de Valk, dismissed the complaint as unfounded, and said his publication follows the teaching of the Catholic Church on homosexuality.
In a typically democratic form of government, basic rights such as freedom of speech, opinion and the press would answer for such concerns, but in Canada, under the jurisdiction of the Human Rights Commissions, the result is anyone's guess, Rushfeldt told WND.
The first problem is that the laws setting up the commissions note that if something "indicates discrimination" and "is likely to expose to hatred or contempt" there is a basis for action. But that leaves the determination on what "indicates discrimination" or "is likely to expose to hatred" up to the officials appointed to the commission panels, he said.
The laws also often are interpreted by those who have no training in the law, and the commissions are not bound by the rules of law when they make their decisions, he added.
Catholic Insight reported that Wells' attack on the publication is not his first. In 2006 he tried to close down several websites including concernedchristians.ca because of their Christian content, and he targeted Ron Gray and the Christian Heritage party because the political entity posted articles "motivated by hate" of homosexuals.
Bishop Fred Henry of Calgary, the Knights of Columbus in Vancouver, Maclean's magazine and its editor and Steyn also have been targeted, mostly for their writings regarding homosexuality, or the influence of Islam.
Alan Borovoy, general counsel for the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, told the magazine he never imagined human rights commissions would ultimately be used against freedom of speech, because they were launched in an effort to eliminate discrimination in pay and housing.
But after "sexual orientation" was added as a protected class, the tribunals have been exploited in pursuit of a ban on anything or anyone with less than a full endorsement of the homosexual lifestyle choice.
"The majority of the complaints have been related to homosexuals claiming that they've been offended, that hate is being propagated against them. The majority being targeted are religious sectors of society," Rushfeldt said.
He cited Alberta's provincial requirement as an example. That law requires that, "No person shall publish, issue or display or cause to be published, issued or displayed before the public any statement, publication, notice, sign, symbol, emblem or other representation that (a) indicates discrimination or an intention to discriminate against a person or a class of persons, or (b) is likely to expose a person or a class of persons to hatred or contempt bcause of the race, religious beliefs, colour, gender, physical disability, mental disability, age, ancestry, place of origin, marital status, source of income or family status of that person or class of persons."
"You see if my feelings are hurt and I feel discriminated against due to my 'religious orientation' then surely I must have a right and entitlement to have an appointed group of people in the Human Rights Commission at taxpayers' expense, intervene and force the activist to pay me compensation for my feelings. This is really not bullying is it? Or is it more like extortion?" said a commentary by the Family Action organization.
"How can I prove my feeling are hurt? I don't need to prove it. I just say it is so and it is so. Do I need to provide truth? No, not under the functions of the Human Rights Act. … Section 3(1) states that if something 'indicates discrimination' and 'is likely to expose to hatred or contempt' is a basis for action."
Worse yet, the commentary noted, the tribunals may make their own rules and regulations, based on the statutory provision that "the panel is not bound by the rules of law respecting evidence in judicial proceedings."
Further, the law says, "No member of the Commission, nor the director of the Commission or any other employee mentioned in section 18, shall be required by any court to give evidence relative to information obtained for the purposes of this Act."
And, "No proceeding under this Act shall be deemed invalid by reason of any defect in form or any technical irregularity."
"The panel (in essence one person perhaps, who is not trained as a judge) can violate the laws respecting evidence and make their own laws in violation of our Charter. That is frightening at any time," the group said.
How could it all apply to the United States? Simple, said Rushfeldt. The "hate crimes" plan that was proposed in Congress could serve as that "one crack" in the wall that would allow such procedures in.
CFAC, which seeks a restoration of Judeo-Christian moral principles in Canada, said the plan advocates tried to "sneak in" by attaching it to a defense appropriations bill recently "was on the verge of some of this kind of stuff."
Rushfeldt said the plan aligned with what now is going on in Canada, even to the point of making people liable for actions by second parties. In Alberta, a man recently was convicted by a Human Rights Commission after writing a letter to the editor opposing homosexuality.
The HRC decision legally linked that writing to an alleged assault on a homosexual two weeks later, even though the attacker never has been arrested or charged.
The Family Research Council has noted the fine print of the U.S. plan would allow the same thing:
"Those who can be found culpable have also been expanded to include not only those who commit the crime but those who may have unknowingly 'inspired' those actions. For example, a pastor can be considered legally culpable if he preaches against the homosexual agenda and a member of his congregation subsequently commits a crime against a homosexual. Thus, the act against the homosexual is considered a crime, as it should be, but so also is the thought against the agenda or conduct," the organization said.
That particular plan has been cited among the top seven acts of Christian-bashing for the year 2007.
Said the Christian Anti-Defamation Coalition, "The 2007 Federal Hate Crimes Bill which threatens religious liberties and lays the groundwork for 'thought crime,' which has no place in American law and violates the concept of equal protection under the law. As has occurred in other nations, these laws pave the way for Christians to be silenced and even arrested because they believe that homosexual acts are sinful."
President Bush
The actual U.S. plan was an amendment to the spending bill, but was stripped out and that delayed at least for now the application of such punishments, before the bill was sent to President Bush.
Michael Marcavage, of Repent America, says his organization has members who were jailed for proclaiming their Christian beliefs on public streets in Philadelphia, because of state regulations similar to the federal proposal.
"It's extraordinarily important that it has been removed from the defense reauthorization bill," he told WND. "But we know that the homosexual lobby is extraordinarily aggressive when it comes to obtaining special protections. That's exactly what this is."
"We must be very vigilant as to what their next move is going to be. They're not going to go away," he said.
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 762
LAW OF THE LAND
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59384
27 December 2007
Prison benefits offered same-sex couples, not marrieds
New law to discriminate against wedded inmates
Prisons in Oregon are preparing to offer inmates who claim a same-sex partnership special privileges specifically denied married inmates, a memo from state officials has confirmed.
The e-mailed memo from Max Williams, director of the Oregon
Department of Corrections, was sent to workers in his department.
The memo referenced two state laws, Senate Bill 2 and House Bill 2007, through which lawmakers created legally recognized partnerships for same-sex duos.
"After the New Year, the Department of Corrections will be
implementing two new laws that were passed by the Legislative Assembly and signed by the governor into law during last year's regular legislative session," the note began. "The new anti- discrimination and family fairness laws, Senate Bill 2 and House Bill 2007, establish and extend new legal protections and benefits to
affected persons."
The memo said lawyers have been in consultation over the changes, and
as a result, "the Department is reviewing and will be amending its
rules as the Department determines is necessary and advisable in
order to comply with the requirements of the new laws."
Specifically, the e-mail said, the department will change its rules so that, "inmates that have entered into a RDP [registered domestic
partnership] will be allowed to live in the same facility and unit,
subject to the needs of orderly operation, safety and security of the
facility."
That just doesn't make sense, or meet the goals of any "fairness" concept, according to one Department of Corrections worker who raised concerns about it.
"The problem I have with this is that the department will not allow heterosexual inmates who are married to live together in the same institution or on the same housing unit," said the employee, whose name was being withheld from publication.
"The new policy gives homosexual RDP inmates the special privilege of living together but denies it for heterosexual married inmates, just
the opposite of what the policy is trying to achieve, and
discriminates against heterosexuals based on their sexual
orientation," the employee continued.
"In Oregon, if you're a homosexual inmate, only then will you be allowed to live with your partner.
"Not only is this a discriminatory policy but it will be an
enforcement nightmare for correctional staff. If the RDP inmates are
allowed to live on the same housing unit, are we going to allow them
to shower together or … let them sleep next to each other? And if we
don't allow them to do those things will we be sued for
discrimination because of their sexual orientation? The whole thing
is just nuts!" the employee said.
The state memo does note that such inmates will not be allowed "to
cell together," but does not define the term.
A spokeswoman for the Department of Corrections initially told WND
that married heterosexual couples wouldn't be offered the option
because the prisons are not coed. But she called back later to say
after consulting with attorneys for the state, the department's
response was that officials were working to implement the state's
laws.
The memo does include instructions that Senate Bill 2 "recognizes and
declares that the opportunity to obtain employment or housing or to
use and enjoy places of public accommodation without discrimination
because of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national
origin, marital status, age or disability is a civil right under
Oregon law."
The other legislative plan, House Bill 2007, "grants legal
recognition in Oregon to same-sex domestic partnerships," the memo
continues.
"Establishing a registered domestic partnership (RDP) affords same-
sex couples all the rights and responsibilities that are granted
under state law through a marriage contract," the memo said. "HB 2007
also provides that any privilege, immunity, right, benefit or
responsibility granted or imposed by statute, administrative or court
rule, policy, common law or any other law to an individual because
the individual is or was married … is granted on equivalent terms,
substantive and procedure, to an individual because the individual is
or was in a domestic partnership."
"Because the Department grants certain privileges and benefits to
inmates on the basis of marriage (e.g., the opportunity to
participate in a ceremony to solemnize a marriage, the opportunity to
possess and wear a plain wedding band), the Department will be
extending these privileges and benefits to inmates that enter into an
RDP in order to comply with the requirements of HB 2007."
The issue also is the subject of a court hearing, scheduled Dec. 28.
The Alliance Defense Fund is seeking a delay in the law until all
votes on the issue are counted, an effort county clerks have refused
to pursue.
An organization called Concerned Oregonians worked on a referendum
that would put HB 2007 and SB 2 before Oregon voters in 2008.
But when the state declared the referendum was five signatures short,
and county clerks refused to correct mistakes that had been made in
the counting, the ADF filed a lawsuit.
In a new column on the issue, Alan Sears, chief of the ADF, noted
that the issue of marriage consisting of – and only of – one man and
one woman is supported overwhelmingly in the United States. Twenty-
seven of 28 states where voters have decided the question, they have
limited marriage to one man and one woman.
"Those seeking to fabricate same-sex 'marriage' have long recognized
the American public is a roadblock to their success. In 1998, after
ADF-allied litigation allowed Alaska citizens to vote on (and pass) a
constitutional amendment barring same-sex unions, the ACLU executive
director declared: 'Today's results prove that certain fundamental
issues should not be left up to a majority vote.'
"When the (new) referendum was submitted to the Oregon Secretary of
State on Sept. 26, signatures exceeded the required number by more
than 6,000. However, the Secretary of State announced there were not
enough signatures to sustain the referendum. The evaluated 'sample'
was said to be only five signatures short. If you wonder how this
could happen, you aren't alone. As it turns out, there is a very
clear explanation – many of the signatures were wrongfully rejected,"
Sears said.
"Signatures were invalidated for allegedly not matching their voter
registration cards, being illegible, or coming from unregistered
voters. But according to ADF attorneys who examined the signatures,
several of those kicked out did match, were legible, and the affected
voters actually were registered. In other words, many valid signers
were ignored," he continued.
Clerks have "adamantly"' resisted efforts by signers to authenticate
their signatures. "One county clerk even told a rejected signer, in
person, and to their face, 'tough nuggets,'" Sears said.
The lawsuit alleges Oregon voters from 12 counties have been
disenfranchised by administrative fiat, because their signatures were
rejected and they were not allowed a procedure to restore them to the
petition.
Bill Burgess, the clerk in Marion County, confirmed the state had
given county clerks instructions to follow a "precedent" and not
correct any incorrectly classified signatures they may have been told
about.
"We also have a legal obligation to follow the guidelines and
precedents of the past and our attorney has told us, and the
Secretary of State has advised us that there is no place in this
petition signature checking process for a person to come in later on
and attest that that was their signature," he told WND.
"There's no direct ban [on corrections]," he said. "Well, it's not
specified, and both the Secretary of State and my legal counsel have
told me not to go there."
The case developed when 54 state lawmakers and Democratic Gov. Ted
Kulongoski rejected the will of the people to approve and sign into
Law HB 2007 and SB 2.
For 148 years Oregon had recognized marriage as the union of a man
and a woman, and voters four times have addressed the issue, most
recently in 2004 when they collected more than a million votes and by
a substantial 57-43 percent margin decided to keep traditional
marriage defined as being between only one man and only one woman.
But the newest legislation simply rejects that vote, and even makes a
move to address such citizen "attitudes," requiring schools to seek
to change the minds of those who don't support homosexual duos.
David Crowe, a leader of Restore America, one of the groups
coordinating the petition effort, told WND that there were a number
of county clerks who colluded with state officials who endorse the
special privileges for homosexuals to prevent people from voting on
the issues.
"It's political," he said. "There are people who are hostile to us in
three or four counties who are in collusion with state officials
behind the scenes, those who we know are not for us."
Crowe said he knew of the instructions from the Secretary of State to
counties not to make any corrections in the tabulation; he said he
had gotten a copy of a state e-mail to that effect.
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 762
into court in handcuffs in April, 2005.
MassResistance
Lawyers for the Lexington Public Schools and David Parker's lawyers have submitted their final briefs to the federal appeals court in Boston.
The hearing for the oral arguments took place on Dec. 5 before the 3-judge appeals panel. Now that the final briefs have been submitted, with each side summing up their positions, a decision is expected within a few weeks.The three-judge federal appeals panel is now preparing to decide the fate of this landmark federal civil rights lawsuit about schools teaching homosexuality in elementary school without parents' knowledge or consent. At issue is whether the ruling by Federal Judge Mark Wolf dismissing the case -- whether that ruling stands, or if not, what happens next.
Last February, Wolf wrote a chilling, outrageous ruling dismissing the case and going further, giving schools virtually unlimited ability to normalize and promote homosexuality in classrooms. The Parkers are appealing this ruling. They seek to have the ruling vacated, and for the trial to be allowed to begin in federal court.
Over the summer, several pro-homosexual groups submitted amicae briefs to accompany the initial briefs by the two parties.
(As we've discussed. There's still an Alice-in-Wonderland quality to this whole thing. Think about it: A panel of federal court judges is seriously and dispassionately deciding whether it's proper to normalize issues homosexual behavior and cross-dressing to elementary school children without their parents' knowledge or consent. In fact, this is madness. It's reminiscent of something out of Red China's insane "Cultural Revolution" from the 1960s.)
Nevertheless, the briefs from each side state their positions pretty clearly:
The schools' brief
Read the school's brief here (Adobe Acrobat format).
The school's legal team consists of lawyers from two big Boston downtown firms, plus the ACLU of Massachusetts and the Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, a powerful non-profit homosexual law firm.
The school's brief is a virtual blueprint for using the legal process to push homosexuality in the schools. Much of the foundation has been already replicated in other states:
- They make extensive use of "case law" to "prove" that what they are doing is legal and necessary. If anything, this illustrates that if you have the time to do enough research, it's possible to find shreds of case law to back up literally anything. It's quite eerie.
- When the Legislature slipped the term "sexual orientation" into the anti-discrimination and education laws a decade ago, almost no one said much. But now, the homosexual groups are using it as a legal battering ram to force homosexuality into the schools, and punish anyone who disagrees.
- The terms "tolerance" and "diversity" into have found their way into the education system's official goals for what constitutes good citizenship. The schools are now stating certain case law gives them the right to "teach anything that is reasonably related to the goals of preparing students to become engaged and productive citizens in our democracy." Again, the homosexual agenda finds its way in, against parents' wishes.
- We've heard this argument before -- teachers should make the final decisions regarding teaching materials. They say:
- They admit that they intend to push the homosexual agenda into various subjects in elementary school. Thus, they claim it would be "impractical" to allow parents to remove their children.
- And, of course, there's the absurd argument that giving rights to parents would "harm" other students.
- Finally, in their brief they insist that the age of the students doesn't make any difference when it comes to homosexuality or parents' rights. Elementary school-age kids are the same as high-school kids in this regard, they state.
Welcome to the brave new world! From a legal standpoint, only the Parkers and Wirthlins are standing their way. If they have their way in this federal appeals court, watch out America!"The appellate record reveals that Massachusetts law prohibits public schools from discriminating based on sex or sexual orientation, and requires schools to implement curricula aimed at encouraging respect for the human and civil rights of all individuals regardless of, inter alia, sexual orientation. The record further reveals that the defendants' use of the three 'objectionable' books is consistent with the above-mentioned state mandates. The defendants have the First Amendment right to use these books regardless of whether it is a part of the state's core curriculum and regardless of the plaintiffs' allegations of indoctrination."
"Whether King & King or the other books are the most suitable or age-appropriate materials available for teaching Lexington schoolchildren about issues of tolerance and diversity necessarily involves pedagogical and political issues beyond the ken of this Court."
"Under plaintiffs' view, many subjects offered at Estabrook Elementary School may include course work involving 'sexuality, gender identity, and marriage construct.' For example, an art teacher may ask students in art class to draw pictures of their families and describe them to the class in an effort to discuss different types of families. If a student in the art class has same-sex parents, the teacher would have to anticipate the day on which that student would present her drawing to the class, remove students such as the Parker and Wirthlin children from the classroom, create an alternative lesson plan for those students, and make sure another teacher is available to supervise the students removed from the art class. Or a social studies teacher may wish to teach about the civil rights movement, which, in turn, gives rise to a discussion about whether discrimination against gays or lesbians is prohibited. If plaintiffs should obtain the injunctive relief they seek, the social studies teacher would have to anticipate that a student may ask such a question and give parents notice of the potential discussion topic. As the above examples illustrate, the injunctive relief plaintiffs seek is not only burdensome, but also impractical. "
"Further, granting injunctive relief to the plaintiffs will be harmful to students of same-sex parents, and possibly violate those students' constitutional rights. Specifically, students of same-sex parents may feel devalued if other students need to leave the classroom before they can speak about their families. Public schools have a duty not to impinge on the rights of other students." Also . . .
"If Cindy's parents are gay, what lessons does she learn if several of her classmates are escorted from the classroom by a public school official whenever she discusses her home life? Certainly, Cindy does not learn about the goals of tolerance and diversity."
The Parkers' brief
Read the Parkers' brief here (Adobe Acrobat format).
The Parkers' lawyers do a good job of not backing down and stating the obvious rather than subtly implying it. A few quotes from the brief: