Ban on 'mom' and 'dad' considered – again

[Soldier4Christ]

Schwarzenegger will fight efforts to ban gay marriage
Calls effort to qualify initiative for November ballot 'waste of time'

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger says if an initiative to ban gay marriage qualifies for the November ballot, he's prepared to fight it.

California's governor was in San Diego Friday speaking at the annual convention of the Log Cabin Republicans, the nation's largest gay Republican group.

Schwarzenegger said he was confident that a ban would never pass in California but called the effort “a waste of time” – joking that he wished activists would focus on allowing naturalized citizens to run for president instead.

A Schwarzenegger spokeswoman did not say what prompted the governor to shift his position. He has previously vetoed bills that would have legalized gay marriage.

[Soldier4Christ]

'I'm a parent, arrest me,' woman tells lawmakers
Committee forwards plan to criminalize spanking

A California mother of five has told members of a legislative committee their plan to criminalize spanking by concerned parents would mean that misbehavior and rebellion no longer could be corrected, and she could face arrest.

Sarah Berke appeared today before the Democrat-controlled Assembly Public Safety Committee, whose members listened to her, then advanced the plan to criminalize spanking with any "implement," such as a wooden spoon, little paddle, rolled-up newspaper, switch, belt or brush.

The proposal is a rerun of last year's attempt to do the same thing, criminalize parents who spank their children, by redefining it as child abuse.

"I'm here today as one of the thousands of parents in our state who love our children and believe in traditional values," she said. "As someone dead-set against the evil of child abuse, I also have a strong faith that calls on me to correct misbehavior and rebellion when it occurs."

She said that means, "spanking once in a while."

However, "my faith and moral beliefs that teach me to 'train up a child in the way he should go' would make me a suspected child abuser under AB 2943," she said. "Under this bill, I could be arrested and charged with child abuse. I could be tried in criminal court, be sent to jail for a year, and lose custody of my children.

"AB 2943 tramples the rights of good parents to raise their children with various methods of correction and discipline. This is wrong. Spanking isn't child abuse," she said.

The proposal is being backed by Assemblywoman Sally Lieber, who launched the same campaign a year ago, only to see it fail then.

Her plan would define any spanking with the use of an "implement" as child abuse.

"AB 2943 will result in good parents being arrested, handcuffed, and charged with criminal child abuse," said Randy Thomasson, president of the Campaign for Children and Families. No state legislature has passed a bill like this, and no state or federal court has ruled that spanking is child abuse."

Voting to endorse the plan were Jose Solorio of Santa Ana, Hector De La Torre of Los Angeles, Fiona Ma of San Francisco, Anthony Portantino of La Caqada Flintridge and Curren Price of Inglewood. All are Democrats. Republican Greg Aghazarian of Stockton voted against.

The proposal next goes to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, the body that halted last year's plan by Lieber because of the expected costs, and the status of California's red-drenched state checkbook.

"This bad bill labels tens of thousands of good fathers and good mothers as violent child abusers," Thomasson said. "Under AB 2943, all mandatory reporters, including teachers, police officers, social workers, counselors and clergy, must be trained to see parents who spank as potential child abusers. The fact that Sally Lieber wants to order good parents into a 'nonviolent parental education class' demonstrates that she thinks parents who spank are violent child abusers."

"This is so wrong – God gave children to parents, not to the state," said Thomasson, whose organization is providing Californians with information to call and e-mail their state lawmakers about the plan.

Lieber has claimed this year's effort would only deal with child abuse, just as last years. But she also affirms that all spanking, by definition, is child abuse.

Those arrested could be charged and tried in a criminal court and be sentenced to a year in jail and lose custody of their children, the family organization said. In addition, it said, such cases could be referred to Child Protective Services and Juvenile Court.

"It's shameful that a lawmaker wants to ban parents from lovingly disciplining their children," said Karen England, executive director of Capitol Resource Family Impact.

"Many parents use a wooden spoon or similar instrument to discipline a disobedient child because they don't want to use their hand, an instrument of love," she said.

Meredith Turney, the organization's legislative liaison, testified against the plan.

"AB 2943 equates kicking, cutting or burning a child with a responsible spanking," she said. "The millions of responsible parents who lovingly discipline their children would never engage in such abusive behavior as burning or cutting their children," she said.

The California Teacher's Association, however, supported the plan, saying, "The use of physical punishment teaches children that violence/physical force is an acceptable method to resolve differences. We need to stop the cycle of violence…"

That organization also supported teaching homosexuality in class, as well as supported communist teachers in public schools, England said.

"It is shocking and outrageous that the largest teachers' union in the state wants to intrude into our homes and tell us how to raise our children," stated England. "Not content with simply indoctrinating students with communism and homosexuality, the union now wants to prevent parents from disciplining their children."

England said current law already addresses abuse adequately.

"This bill goes much further and seeks to prohibit parents from raising healthy, responsible children," she said.

"There is contempt in the legislature for Judeo-Christian values and AB 2943 is the most blatant evidence of this attempt to take away our freedom to raise children according to our beliefs," Turney said.

Lieber's plan last year drew objections even from editorialists.

The Contra Costa Times said the bill "is completely unenforceable. Are we to expect a 2-year-old to dial 911 and report a parent for swatting him or her on the behind?"

The newspaper's editorial took a straightforward shot at the issue.

"With all of the pressing problems facing our state, what issue has the knickers of our esteemed lawmakers in such a twist? What burning concern has the ponderous pundits on the cable news shows frothing at the mouth?

"Global warming? Plunging real estate values? Good-paying jobs being shipped off to India every time you turn around? Maybe the governor's new health care proposal?

"None of the above.

"The latest meaningless, national distraction, is a silly bill proposed by Assembly Pro Tem Speaker Sally Lieber, D-Mountain View, that would make it a crime to spank any child 3 years old or younger."

The editorial's suggestion? "Get real."

[nChrist]

I know there are a lot of decent people in California, and I feel sorry for them. It appears that they have a never ending battle of trying to keep raw sewage in the sewers. Their representatives are NOT responsive, and no attention is paid to previous and recent votes of the people. I plan to pray for the decent people of California that GOD helps them take back their state. It's a sad state of affairs when the majority in a free country is ignored. It's also time for a third and maybe a fourth party in California. When there is NO representation of the people, something must change.

The people can FORCE State Constitution changes. The people can also FORCE public votes on the issues, recall their representatives, and consider criminal and civil proceedings. The people are still in charge of California if they decide to BE! There aren't any dictatorships in California, and the people have the same RIGHTS under the CONSTITUTION as any other citizen in the country. There are prescribed penalties for violations of those rights, and it appears that California would be a good place to give government a refresher course about where they are and who's in charge. Civil and Constitutional Rights don't go away because some well-organized and rich weirdos want them to. They simply have one vote, just like everyone else - AND THE PEOPLE ARE IN CHARGE! The rich weirdos need to spend some time in jails and prisons when they trample the civil and Constitutional rights of the people, ESPECIALLY under COLOR OF LAW!

[Soldier4Christ]

Top California court backs gay marriage

The California Supreme Court ruled on Thursday the state cannot bar same-sex marriages, marking a major victory for gay rights advocates that may have national implications.

"Under these circumstances, we cannot find that retention of the traditional definition of marriage constitutes a compelling state interest," the court said in a majority decision.

"Accordingly, we conclude that to the extent the current California statutory provisions limit marriage to opposite-sex couples, these statutes are unconstitutional."

Massachusetts is now the only U.S. state to allow gay marriage. Connecticut, New Hampshire, New Jersey and Vermont permit same-sex civil unions that grant largely the same state rights as married couples but lack the full, federal legal protections of marriage.

The California court concluded that the right to marry in the state's constitution "guarantees same-sex couples the same substantive constitutional rights as opposite-sex couples to choose one's life partner and enter with that person into a committed, officially recognized, and protected family relationship."

San Francisco officials who have pressed in state courts for allowing same-sex marriage applauded the decision.

"I'm profoundly grateful," said San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera. "This is a historic day."

"Everybody being entitled to equal protection under the law probably carried the day," Herrera said, referring to what he saw as a fundamental basis for the court's decision.

Opponents of gay marriage are planning to ask state voters to override any court ruling allowing same-sex nuptials.

[nChrist]

The people of California have already voted on issues surrounding this controversy several times. THE PEOPLE SAY NO!

It really doesn't matter what the court says. If I understand things correctly, the people are about to end the games completely and take their state back. IT'S ABOUT TIME. This latest episode of tyranny by judges acting like dictators should be the icing on the cake to make the people determined enough to take their state back. There will be some legal battles, but nothing can be done to stop the will of the people TO SET THINGS STRAIGHT AND RIGHT!

[Soldier4Christ]

California's 'judicial fiat' condemned – by judge
'Undeterred by state, federal law, new constitutional right invented'

Two members of the California Supreme Court, which earlier today ruled the state cannot prevent homosexuals from "marrying," have condemned the decision as "judicial fiat."

"A bare majority of this court, not satisfied with the pace of democratic change, now abruptly forestalls that process and substitutes, by judicial fiat, its own social policy views for those expressed by the People themselves," said the dissent written by Associate Justice Marvin R. Baxter and joined by Associate Justice Ming W. Chin.

"Undeterred by the strong weight of state and federal law and authority, the majority invents a new constitutional right," the opinion said.

The majority opinion, written by Chief Justice Ron George, who was appointed to his office by former Republican Gov. Pete Wilson, trashed society's traditional and biblical institution of marriage, opening up the option for same-sex duos to be "married" because retaining the historic definition "cannot properly be viewed as a compelling state interest."

The majority in the 4-3 decision explained the justices based their reasoning on several factors, including society's feelings about, or perception of, the issue.

Joining George in the majority opinion were Carlos R. Moreno, Joyce L. Kennard and Kathryn Mickle Werdegard. Carol Corrigan wrote a separate dissent.

The court found that excluding homosexuals from "marriage" is not needed, and would, in fact, "impose appreciable harm on same-sex couples and their children," the court said.

"Because of the widespread disparagement that gay individuals historically have faced, it is all the more probable that excluding same-sex couples from the legal institution of marriage is likely to be viewed as reflecting an official view that their committed relationships are of lesser stature than the comparable relationships of opposite-sex couples," the court said.

"Retaining the designation of marriage exclusively for opposite-sex couples and providing only a separate and distinct designation for same-sex couples may well have the effect of perpetuating a more general premise – now emphatically rejected by this state – that gay individuals and same-sex couples are in some respects 'second-class citizens'…"

Officials with the American Family Association of Pennsylvania pointed out the problems that now have been created by the decision.

"The judges found there is a 'fundamental right to form a family,' where does such a statement end? How is family defined? Are families formed by incest between a father and his daughter, an uncle and niece, or by group marriages, one man three women, one women 10 men – how is a family formed under such a ludicrous court decision?" the group asked.

"These California judges have created chaos of marriage in that state and it will have ramifications across the country. There is no residency requirement in California nor do they have a Massachusetts-type law that says if your marriage is not legal in your state, you cannot marry here. The door has been opened for Pennsylvania's and all other state's Defense of Marriage Acts to be challenged. Same-sex commitment ceremonies in Philadelphia in November and State College in March have laid the groundwork for just such a challenge," the group said.

The opinion came in response to a series of lawsuits filed against the state after voters in California voted 61-39 percent that marriage should be recognized only between a man and a woman, and then the mayor of San Francisco started issuing marriage licenses to same-sex duos.

The court stopped him from doing that, but only because the question had not been properly submitted, which it now apparently has been.

"I cannot join the majority's holding that the California Constitution gives same-sex couples a right to marry," the dissent said. "In reaching this decision, I believe, the majority violates the separation of powers, and thereby commits profound error.

"Nothing in our Constitution, express or implicit, compels the majority's startling conclusion that the age-old understanding of marriage – an understanding recently confirmed by an initiative law – is no longer valid," Baxter continued. "California statutes already recognize same-sex unions and grant them all the substantive legal rights this state can bestow.

"If there is to be a further sea change in the social and legal understanding of marriage itself, that evolution should occur by similar democratic means. The majority forecloses this ordinary democratic process, and, in doing so, oversteps its authority."

Baxter said the majority's logic was troubling.

"The majority relies heavily on the Legislature's adoption of progressive civil rights protections for gays and lesbians to find a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. In effect, the majority gives the Legislature indirectly power that body does not directly possess to amend the Constitution and repeal an initiative statute…"

He explained: "The question presented by this case is simple and stark. It comes down to this: Even though California's progressive laws, recently adopted through the democratic process, have pioneered the rights of same-sex partners to enter legal unions with all the substantive benefits of opposite-sex legal unions, do those laws nonetheless violate the California Constitution because at present, in deference to long and universal tradition, by a convincing popular vote, and in accord with express national policy … they reserve the label 'marriage' for opposite-sex legal unions? I must conclude that the answer is no."

He said the people have every right to adopt laws changing the definition of marriage. But that didn't happen. Instead, it was a "judicial fiat," he concluded. "I cannot join this exercise in legal jujitsu."

"The majority … simply does not have the right to erase, then recast, the age-old definition of marriage, as virtually all societies have understood it, in order to satisfy its own contemporary notions of equality and justice. The California Constitution says nothing about the rights of same-sex couples to marry. On the contrary, as the majority concedes, our original Constitution, effective from the moment of statehood, evidenced an assumption that marriage was between partners of the opposite sex."

The dissent itself confirmed the worst fears emanating from Pennsylvania:

"Who can say that, in 10, 15, or 20 years, an activist court might not rely on the majority's analysis to conclude, on the basis of a perceived evolution in community values, that the laws prohibiting polygamous and incestuous marriages were no longer constitutionally justified?" the Baxter opinion said.

Further, Baxter continued, "it is certainly reasonable for the Legislature, having granted same-sex couples all substantive marital rights within its power, to assign those rights a name other than marriage. After all, an initiative statute adopted by a 61.4 percent popular vote, and constitutionally immune from repeal by the Legislature, defines marriage as a union of partners of the opposite sex."

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, an ardent supporter of homosexual activism, said she welcomed the "historic decision."

"I have long fought against discrimination and believe that the state constitution provides for equal treatment for all California's citizens and families," she said.

However, a flood of comments from pro-family groups landed on the other side.

"In 1863, Abraham Lincoln said in the Gettysburg Address that ours is a government 'of the people, by the people and for the people.' Well, not in the state of California, where four imperious and unelected justices have just overridden the will of the voters," said James Dobson, chief of Focus on the Family, a Christian publishing and broadcast empire.

"In 2000, Proposition 22 defined marriage as being exclusively between one man and one woman; the initiative passed by an overwhelming margin of 61 to 39 percent. That emphatic expression of the will of the people has now arrogantly been declared null and void," he said.

"It will be up to the people of California to preserve traditional marriage by passing a constitutional amendment in the November elections," he said. "Only then can they protect themselves from this latest example of judicial tyranny."

cont'd

[Soldier4Christ]

At Americans for Truth, officials now are lobbying for a Federal Marriage Amendment, saying only that "would establish a national standard preserving the historic institution of marriage as one-man, one-woman."

A WND reader said, "The appropriate response from California citizens should be to remove these clowns from office and appoint people who aren't influenced by rich perverts. The majority of Californians have already spoken in the polls, marriage is for men and women. Now they need to let the politicians know that they mean business."

Another WND reader was brief in his concern:

"Four vs. 4,618,673. The four won," he said.

"The California Supreme Court has engaged in the worst kind of judicial activism today, abandoning its role as an objective interpreter of the law and, instead, legislating from the bench. It’s absurd to suggest that the framers of the California state constitution could have ever imagined there'd be a day when so-called 'same-sex marriage' would even be conceptualized, much less seriously considered. If anyone then had suggested the absurd notion, early Californians would have laughed their smocks off," said Matt Barber, policy director for cultural issues at Concerned Women for America.

"So-called 'same-sex' marriage is counterfeit marriage. Marriage is, and has always been, between a man and a woman," he said.

"The people of California decided eight years ago that marriage in our state will be defined as between one man and one woman. Four arrogant, elitist, activist judges decided that they know better than the people how marriage should be defined," said Karen England, of Capitol Resource Institute.

"It is certainly disappointing that the court, in declaring a right to same-sex marriage in the California Constitution, has shown an outrageous lack of respect for a majority of California voters and ignored a long history of legal precedent supporting traditional marriage," said legal counsel Jennifer Monk of Advocates for Faith and Freedom, one of the organizations that worked on the case.

California Assemblyman Bob Huff, R-Diamond Bar, said, "With the passage of Proposition 22, the voters of California agreed that marriage is 'between a man and a woman.' PERIOD. The court's decision today is further proof that some activist judges value their own beliefs over the will of the people."

"This ruling defies logic. It is a gross departure from the rule of law. It is outrageous. Traditional marriage is common sense. Yet, this decision is nonsense," said Mathew Staver, chief of Liberty Counsel, which also worked on the case.

The ruling disposed of several individual challenges to California's marriage statutes that arose after the state's voters, by a margin of 4.6 million to 2.9 million, adopted a law that states California would recognize only marriages involving one man and one woman.

That same plan now is being proposed for a constitutional amendment by the ProtectMarriage.com campaign, a broad-based coalition of pro-family organizations, churches and individuals.

That's now needed, the campaign says, because even though voters overwhelmingly passed the Proposition 22 law, that was a "regular statute" within the outlines of the California Family Code. But politicians and judges have been bypassing it, and chipping away at it, to ignore the will of the voters, and now the courts have gutted it entirely.

A constitutional amendment, however, cannot be changed by either legislative or judicial "fiat." The campaign already has collected enough signatures to be on this fall's ballot, and only awaits verification from the state.

The battle dates to 1996, when then-Assemblyman William J. "Pete" Knight introduced legislation to protect traditional marriage. It failed by one vote in the state Senate.

He later led the Protection of Marriage Coalition to gather more than 600,000 petition signatures and qualify Prop 22 for the ballot, an effort that was approved by 61.4 percent of the voters in 2000.

It reads, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

State lawmakers and judicial activists, however, have been moving to undermine that vote ever since.

Rev. Rob Schenck, of the National Clergy Council, called for voters to be involved not only in pursuing a constitutional amendment, but ejecte a few black robes from the courthouses.

"California citizens can take bad judges off the bench by voting no when their names appear on the ballot," he said. "Citizens must get directly involved in choosing who will sit on their highest state courts."

Randy Thomasson, of Campaign for Children and Families, said the court simply "exchanged the rule of law for the rule of unbridled power to destroy all that is good and sacred."

"Gov. [Arnold] Schwarzenegger should resist any temptation to sign any bill opposing the people's vote on marriage," he suggested.

[nChrist]

History is a GOOD TEACHER, and it appears that people have problems remembering history. So, it's a good thing to remind everyone from time to time about what the FACTS WERE and WHY! In this case, the FACTS and the "WHY'S" were the same for the ENTIRE RECORDED HISTORY OF THIS COUNTRY, with the exception of JUST THE LAST FEW YEARS! So, let's have a little REFRESHER COURSE!

1 - Homosexual behavior was a FELONY OFFENSE in the entire country until just the last few years. Most states still have the laws on the books whether they are enforced or not!

2 - WHY? - Homosexual behavior is known as a "CRIME AGAINST NATURE" - a CRIME AGAINST GOD'S NATURAL DESIGN AND ORDER! This is why homosexuality, sex with beasts, and other ABOMINATIONS TO GOD had a prescribed punishment of STONING TO DEATH! In effect, the ABOMINATION was stopped from spreading to others with the death penalty. IT'S ALSO AN UNQUESTIONED FACT THAT THESE PERVERTED SEXUAL ACTS ARE ALREADY DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE FOR AN EPIDEMIC OF DEADLY DISEASES THAT CAUSE DEATH! THE NUMBERS OF THOSE WHO HAVE DIED OR ARE WAITING TO DIE ARE OUTRAGEOUS - FAR BEYOND A PUBLIC HEALTH CRISIS!

It appears there is rampant INSANITY TODAY, and many folks have NO COMMON SENSE AT ALL! Isn't the above enough COMMON SENSE to indicate that CIVILIZED SOCIETIES WHO CARE ABOUT THE HEALTH AND WELFARE OF THE POPULATION WOULD BE COMPLETELY RIGHT IN MAKING ANY ACT A FELONY THAT KILLS LITERALLY MILLIONS OF PEOPLE EVERY YEAR! What about those trying to encourage our children into PARTICIPATING IN PERVERTED SEXUAL ACTS THAT ARE FAR BEYOND JUST LIFE-THREATENING? If one forgets completely about MORALS, GOD'S COMMANDS, AND THE HOLY BIBLE - ISN'T THE PUBLIC HEALTH CRISIS, THE MILLIONS DYING, AND THE MILLIONS MORE WAITING TO DIE ENOUGH TO CAUSE SOMEONE TO EXERCISE A TINY BIT OF COMMON SENSE?

We don't teach our children to drink "DRANO" because it would be life-threatening, painful, cause serious illness, and have a fairly high probability of causing DEATH! Drinking "DRANO" is NOT OK, good, NORMAL, or SMART for VERY OBVIOUS AND COMMON SENSE REASONS! EXCHANGE THE WORD "DRANO" WITH "PERVERTED SEXUAL ACTS" AND WE HAVE A LIKE COMPARISON!

HOW LONG WILL IT TAKE MENTAL GIANTS TO FIGURE THIS OUT?

[Soldier4Christ]

Fate of homeschooling in court's hands
Original case ruling threatened education choice for thousands

The fate of homeschooling, the education choice for hundreds of thousands in the state, now is in the hands of the justices on the bench of the California Court of Appeal, 2nd District, Division 3, according to an announcement from the Home School Legal Defense Association.

The organization said today that all of the filings of the legal briefs in the case that has been labeled "In re Rachel L." have been completed.

"The Court of Appeal, which made the fateful decision on Feb. 28, 2008, to declare all homeschooling illegal unless the parent is a certified teacher, will now begin the process of considering the arguments. The current schedule anticipates oral arguments to begin this June," the HSLDA told supporters in an e-mail alert.

"HSLDA has been at the forefront of the process to defend the right to homeschool in California and across the country. In this case, we were able to successfully help Gary Kreep of the U.S. Justice Foundation, who represents the father at the center of this case, Mr. L., to prepare the arguments to grant the petition for re-hearing.

"When the Court of Appeal granted the petition for rehearing, the original opinion was vacated and no longer has any legal effect," HSLDA said.

In granting the petition for rehearing, the appeals court judges invited a number of organizations and interests to file amicus briefs, expressing their opinion on the issues at hand including the constitutionality of homeschooling in California. Among those invited were the state education department and teachers' union, as well as the state.

In the brief filed recently on behalf of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. argued that there's no need to dig into state constitutional issues regarding homeschooling since state laws already provide for that choice for parents.

"Here, this court need not reach any constitutional issues because this petition can be decided entirely on statutory grounds," the brief said. "The Education Code provides a broad statutory basis for homeschooling in California, setting forth three different avenues through which parents may legally homeschool their children."

The brief said the trial court in the case at hand "addressed only the constitutional issues, it never considered the preliminary question of whether the parents had met the statutory requirements for homeschooling under the Education Act."

WND broke the story in February when the original decision was released, and has reported on the various briefs as they have been filed.

An earlier amicus brief was filed by the Pacific Justice Institute on behalf of Sunland Christian Academy, the private school that offered the independent program in which the family's children were enrolled.

The father in the case is represented separately by the United States Justice Foundation and the Alliance Defense Fund, which have been working on the case's main arguments to the court.

But since the case originated with a juvenile court proceeding, some of the arguments and briefs have remained confidential, because of the standard for handling juvenile proceedings. Other briefs have been released publicly.

"In the latest round of filings, we have also been able to provide substantial assistance to the Alliance Defense Fund, which is partnering with the U.S. Justice Foundation in order to make the strongest argument possible to preserve homeschool freedom in California," the HSLDA said.

"HSLDA has also filed a friend-of-the-court brief in conjunction with Focus on the Family and Family Protection Ministries to show the benefits of a home education. These arguments draw on the extensive development of homeschooling and the successful track record of parents educating their children at home," the organization said.

"While we do not know what the court will decide, you can be confident that hundreds of hours were spent by many different organizations to defend your right to homeschool," the support group said in a statement signed by its president, J. Michael Smith.

The original opinion, later dropped, was written by Appeals Court Judge H. Walt Croskey and said: "We find no reason to strike down the Legislature's evaluation of what constitutes an adequate education scheme sufficient to promote the 'general diffusion of knowledge and intelligence. … We agree … 'the educational program of the State of California was designed to promote the general welfare of all the people and was not designed to accommodate the personal ideas of any individual in the field of education.'"

Homeschool advocates immediately expressed concern the original ruling would leave parents who educate their children at home liable criminally as well as open to civil charges for child neglect that could create the potential for fines, court-ordered counseling or even loss of custody.

The White House said President Bush has been a longtime supporter of homeschooling, and an amicus brief – this one on behalf of members of Congress – was filed by Liberty Counsel.

The brief notes that as early as 1925, the U.S. Supreme Court recognized the rights of parents to direct the education of their children.

"The fundamental theory of liberty upon which all governments in this Union repose excludes any general power of the state to standardize its children by forcing them to accept instruction from public teachers only," the high court said.

The original California opinion arose from a dependency case brought in juvenile court. In the process, attorneys assigned by the court to the family's two younger children sought a court order for them to be enrolled in a public or qualifying private school.

The district court denied the request citing parental rights, but the appellate court overturned the decision and granted the attorneys' request. The appeals court concluded the parents held neither a statutory right nor a constitutional right to provide homeschooling to their own children.

[Soldier4Christ]

Supremes asked to give voters a chance
'We trust the high court will respect the democratic process'
Posted: May 22, 2008
8:45 pm Eastern

© 2008 WorldNetDaily

A petition has been submitted to the California Supreme Court asking the justices there to delay the effective date of their same-sex marriage opinion until voters have their say on the issue.

The request came today from the Alliance Defense Fund, which has argued the case in the state's courts as the case progressed.

ADF attorneys say the court should avoid "obvious legal problems" that could develop when California voters vote in November on a state constitutional amendment limiting marriage to one man and one woman.

"The people of California have a constitutional right to vote on marriage, and we trust the high court will respect the democratic process," said Glen Lavy, a senior counsel for ADF. He argued the case before the court on March 4.

"The possibility of significant and unnecessary legal and social problems can be avoided by waiting to see what the California people desire when it comes to the meaning of marriage," he said.

The high court ruled 4–3 on May 15 that the voter-approved Proposition 22, the California Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman, is unconstitutional. Alliance Defense Fund attorneys who defended Proposition 22 note that the outcome illustrates precisely why a state law alone is not sufficient to protect marriage.

"Amending the state constitution is ultimately the only avenue to ensure that no one interferes with the will of the California people on the meaning of marriage," Lavy said. "We hope that the court will allow the California people to have their say on the amendment without enduring the potential problems associated with implementing the court’s decision before then."

Last week's ruling striking the will of the people about marriage in California has prompted a reaction from pro-family organizations who already have submitted nearly twice the number of signatures needed to place the constitutional amendment before voters.

They believe the battle over marriage in the Golden State is far from over.

Of 28 states where such an amendment has been considered, it has been approved 27 times.

[Soldier4Christ]

Whoa! Marriage laws aren't changed – yet
Activists note California court cannot change existing statutes

Some 10 days ago, four black-robed members of the California Supreme Court trashed traditional marriage of one-man-and-one-woman. But that opinion has to be translated into changes in state law, forms, and procedures before any actual same-sex "marriage" can take place, and that hasn't happened yet and might not for some time, according to a pro-family organization.

For example, one of the legally established forms in California involving marriage issues reflects several references to "bride" and "groom" and "husband" and "wife" that must properly be filled out by "qualifying" individuals before state law allows it to be recognized, according to Randy Thomasson of the Campaign for Children and Families.

And state law demands, "Every person who knowingly procures or offers any false or forged instrument to be filed, registered, or recorded in any public office within this state … is guilty of a felony." Thomasson believes that leaves a formal change in state statutes as the only way the state can implement what the court has expressed in its opinion.

State officials had a different thought on the matter.

Richard Stapler, a spokesman for Assembly Speaker Karen Bass, told WND, "It is my understanding, with their ruling, it was the remedy for their finding that local entities were to make changes to licensing [forms and procedures] to conform with the court's ruling."

He said his understanding was that "no legislative action" was needed for the "remedy of the opinion."

Kate Kendell, of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, also told the Associated Press she isn't worried.

"The T's crossed and I's dotted on the form are the least of our concerns," she said.

But Thomasson told WND that part of the reason that the same-sex "marriage" licenses granted by San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom in 2004 were invalidated by the state Supreme Court is that the state forms hadn't been changed legally, and the state's laws ban making individual alterations on such forms.

He said the laws cannot be changed arbitrarily.

(Story continues below)

"The courts give their opinions. They cannot make the Legislature do something," he said. "The Legislature can respond and pass legislation, but the democratic process must be followed."

Mark Horton, director of the state Public Health Department, oversees the state's Office of Vital Records, and spokeswoman Linette Scott simply stated, "We are going to be in compliance with the court order."

But Thomasson already has faxed Horton a letter concerning the forms, and changes to them:

"The standard marriage application form and processes cannot be changed from a 'bride' and a 'groom' or a 'man' and 'woman' without the Legislature first putting a bill on the governor's desk that he signs," Thomasson advised.

"The authority of California statutes was clearly understood by your office in 2004 when the city of San Francisco created altered forms which were out of compliance with the marriage statutes governing this process. Even with the Supreme Court's May 15 ruling, only the Legislature can change the statutes which govern those forms," he wrote.

"The California Constitution clearly limits lawmaking power to the Legislature and the voters. This foundational requirement of our democratic process applies now to changing the marriage forms in response to the court," he said.

The state's marriage forms create complications for those who would simply use their own judgment and initiative to create, or change, a form. They already read: "Make no erasures, whiteouts or other alterations."

"These statutes are in the California Family Code, placed there by the Legislature and the people through the initiative process, which, according to the California Constitution, are the only two legislative powers in the state," Thomasson's organization said.

In 2004, during the month of San Francisco's "marriages," a spokesman for the state agency that registers marriages confirmed that the standard application form is required, "and if it has been altered in any way, then it will not be registered and recorded."

The official said forms with "bride" and "groom" crossed out and alternatives written in cannot be recognized.

"We have to follow the law when we process these forms. It's part of the public statute," said Nicole Evans, spokeswoman for Kim Belshe, the California Health and Human Services secretary.

"Unlike Massachusetts, which has no statutes on marriage licenses, forms and processes, California cannot change its standard marriage form or processes until the Legislature passes and the governor signs legislation in response to the Supreme Court's ruling," Thomasson said.

Thomasson also said there could be complications with the legislative process right now, since the specified effective date for any legislation pending in the California Legislature now would be Jan. 1, 2009. That could be changed by a two-thirds vote supporting the issue as an "emergency," but he said minority Republicans probably would not be willing to do.

Thomasson said the American people also must learn from the ruling.

"We cannot just live as Americans and believe when a judge rules, we have to submit. There are very many virtuous people throughout history who have said 'no' to unjust commands, unjust orders," he said.

"The Supreme Court can't require the Legislature to do anything," added Gary Kreep, executive director of the United States Justice Foundation.

"All the court could do is declare a statute unconstitutional, although in this case there was no basis for it. After that, it's up to the Legislature or the voters to respond. The Schwarzenegger administration can't do anything to the marriage form and processes until the Legislature passes a bill changing the existing statutes," Kreep said.

That concept even was cited in a dissenting opinion in the May 15 opinion. Associate Justice Carol Corrigan noted the principle of judicial restraint "protects the people against judicial overreaching. It is no answer to say that judges can break the covenant so long as they are enlightened or well-meaning."

Corrigan suggested, "If there is to be a new understanding of the meaning of marriage in California, it should develop among the people of our state and find its expression at the ballot box."

WND reported just one day earlier about the Alliance Defense Fund, which is suggesting the court itself delay the effective date of its ruling, scheduled now for June 16.

That was requested because voters probably will have before them in November a proposed constitutional amendment that would, if approved, limit marriage to one man and one woman. Such an approval essentially would nullify the court's ruling, because even the courts cannot declare the state's constitution unconstitutional.

Supporters of that ballot issue have turned in 1.1 million signatures to put it on the statewide election ballot. About 750,000 signatures are needed, and county clerks are in the process now of verifying those.

The state's high court ruled the voter-approved Proposition 22, the California Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman, is unconstitutional. Alliance Defense Fund attorneys who defended Proposition 22 note that the outcome illustrates precisely why a state law alone is not sufficient to protect marriage.

"Amending the state constitution is ultimately the only avenue to ensure that no one interferes with the will of the California people on the meaning of marriage," Senior Legal Counsel Glen Lavy said. "We hope that the court will allow the California people to have their say on the amendment without enduring the potential problems associated with implementing the court’s decision before then."

Of 28 states where such an amendment has been considered, it has been approved 27 times.

[Soldier4Christ]

Thomasson said the American people also must learn from the ruling.

"We cannot just live as Americans and believe when a judge rules, we have to submit. There are very many virtuous people throughout history who have said 'no' to unjust commands, unjust orders," he said.

[Soldier4Christ]

Same-sex weddings could commence June 14
Effort under way to overturn California Supreme Court ruling

Same-sex couples in some California counties will be able to marry as soon as June 14, the president of the California's county clerks association said.

Stephen Weir, who heads the California Association of Clerks and Election Officials, said Monday he was told by the Office of Vital Records that clerks would be authorized to hand out marriage licenses as soon as that date, which is a Saturday and exactly 30 days after the California Supreme Court ruled that gay marriage should be legal.

The court's decisions typically take effect after 30 days, barring further legal action.

Weir added that the state planned to give California's 58 counties advice this week for implementing the historic change so local officials can start planning.

No confirmation
Suanne Buggy, a spokeswoman for the California Department of Public Health, which oversees the vital records office, would not confirm Monday that state officials have settled the matter of when counties can or must start extending marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

"We will be getting guidance out to the counties soon," Buggy said.

According to Weir, it would be up to each county clerk to decide whether to open their offices to gay and lesbian couples on that Saturday or to wait until the following Monday.

Some clerks have said they would try to accommodate couples at the earliest possible date, depending on their staffing and anticipated demand, he said.

If the court's decision does take effect on June 14, couples could, in theory, plan to obtain their licenses and take their vows at 12:01 a.m. that day, he said.

Official hopes to be first
As it happens, Weir's office in Martinez already holds open hours on the second Saturday of each month, so serving couples who want to get hitched as soon as possible won't be a problem, he said. He and his partner of 18 years hope to be the first ones to tie the knot.

"Just because we have been so close to it, and so far, I would really like to be first," Weir said.

An effort, however, is under way to stay the Supreme Court's decision until voters can decide the issue with an initiative planned for the November ballot. The measure would overrule the justices' decision and amend the state constitution to ban gay marriage.

Justices have until the ruling's effective date to weigh the request, but could give themselves longer to consider it, attorneys have said. Another complicating factor is that the Supreme Court also directed a midlevel appeals court that upheld the state's one man-one woman marriage laws a year ago to issue a new order legalizing same-sex marriage, and it is not clear when the appeals court will comply.

Massachusetts is the only other U.S. state to legalize gay marriage, something it did in 2004. More than 9,500 same-sex couples in that state have wed.

[Soldier4Christ]

Sex indoctrination opponents are like Hitler'
Board member blasts critics of state's 'gay' promotions

A school board member in California says those who oppose the state's SB777, a law approved by last year's legislature and signed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger that restricts public schools to teaching only positive perspectives of homosexuality, are "like Hitler."

The report comes from Karen England of Capitol Resource Family Impact, which is working on the Save Our Kids campaign to assemble enough petition signatures in the state to put SB777 on the 2008 election ballot.

"Last night the West Covina Unified School Board took a bold stand for families and our values by voting to pass a resolution supporting the Save Our Kids initiative," said England's report. "This is the first local school board to publicly protest SB777 and its harmful policies."

"Three brave members of the school board voted to support Save our Kids: Steve Cox, Mike Spence and Camie Poulos. However, two members refused to support the Save Our Kids resolution: George Fuller and Jessica Shewmaker," she said.

"Just before the vote on the resolution occurred, board member Fuller actually declared that anyone who opposes SB777 and its sexual indoctrination is like Adolf Hitler. He asserted that there once was 'a man who tried to rid the world of homosexuals; Hitler didn't survive,'" she reported.

"Board member Spence demanded an immediate apology from Fuller for comparing citizens with traditional values to an evil dictator like Adolf Hitler. Fuller refused to apologize," England said.

"We are extremely excited that the West Covina Unified School Board is supporting the protection of innocent children from sexual indoctrination," England said. "But our victory here also revealed just how bigoted and hateful some school board members are. Board member George Fuller should publicly apologize to the citizens of his district and all Californians for comparing us to Adolf Hitler. This is shameful behavior from an elected school board member and his constituents should be very concerned this man is making decisions about their children's education.

"We encourage every recipient of this email to contact West Covina Unified School Board members George Fuller and Jessica Shewmaker and ask why they did not support the Save Our Kids resolution," she said. "Also, contact George Fuller and ask him why he won't apologize for comparing citizens with traditional values to Adolf Hitler."

"SB777 is a mandate for every school district, ending local control on sensitive issues," the Save Our Kids website says. "SB777 normalizes homosexuality, bisexuality, and transsexuality across the state, without room for local discretion on addressing these issues."

England told WND that the law is not a list of banned words, including "mom" and "dad." But she said the requirement is that the law bans discriminatory bias and the effect will be to ban such terminology.

"Having 'mom' and 'dad' promotes a discriminatory bias. You have to either get rid of 'mom' and 'dad' or include everything when talking about [parental issues]," she said. "They [promoters of sexual alternative lifestyles] do consider that discriminatory."

The California plan still is facing a court challenge on its constitutionality in addition to the possible vote of the people.

The organization notes earlier state law already "establishes equal protection for every California public school student," so that SB777 was unnecessary. It specifically requires: "No teacher shall give instruction nor shall a school district sponsor any activity that promotes a discriminatory bias" against homosexuality, bisexuality and transsexuality."

[Soldier4Christ]

Personally I see those that support SB777 acting more like Hitler as they are wanting to impose government rules and indoctrination on the people that the people do not want.