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

[nChrist]

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.

I agree completely! California is becoming a perfect example of dictatorships and/or authoritarian types of government that ignore the WILL OF THE PEOPLE and trample underfoot those who disagree with their ILLEGAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL actions. The people have already spoken numerous times in LAWFUL VOTING, but they have been ignored. What we are seeing in California is a GROSS violation of RIGHTS UNDER THE COLOR OF LAW! However, the LAW they claim to be operating under DOES NOT EXIST, and ONLY THE PEOPLE can give them such a law with DUE PROCESS - VOTING! It's far past time for the people of California to TAKE THEIR STATE BACK and file criminal and civil charges against those abusing authority. The LAWS for accomplishing this are crystal clear and not a matter of opinion. It would take some time and determination to get this case heard by a court with adequate authority, but it would be well worth the effort.

[Soldier4Christ]

Rallying the church to defend marriage in CA

An effort is under way to get the church involved in California's November ballot issue to protect the traditional definition of marriage through an amendment to state constitution.

The California Supreme Court recently gave homosexuals the same marriage rights as heterosexuals, a ruling due to take effect the middle of this month, barring a stay on that ruling. "(S)o today we're living with a court that no longer respects biblical teaching -- which in my opinion spells disaster for the state of California," warns Walter Hoye of the Issues4Life Foundation.
 
He adds that if the state is to do anything on the subject, it ought to be to strengthening traditional marriage. Hoye says 40 percent of children are born out of wedlock, and that it is in the public's interest to encourage stronger families and marriages.
 
"... [Strong heterosexual marriages] create new life -- and [it can do it] without the staggering and tragic social consequences that occur outside of marriage," he details. Protecting marriage between a man and a woman, says Hoye, and effectively promoting the institution would have an impact on school dropouts, crime, and the prison population.
 
Hoye will be one of those working for a strong voter turnout from the church. He notes that in March 2000, more than 60 percent of California voters defeated another attack on traditional marriage, and he hopes this will be reflected in the upcoming election.

[Soldier4Christ]

Marriage protection initiative qualifies for CA ballot

An initiative that would again protect traditional marriage in California has qualified for the November ballot, the Secretary of State announced Monday.

California Secretary of State Debra Bowen said a random check of signatures submitted by the measure's sponsors showed that they had gathered enough names for it to be put to voters.

The measure would amend the state constitution to "provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

If approved by a majority of voters on Nov. 4, the amendment would overturn the recent California Supreme Court ruling that legalized same-sex "marriage" in the state. It is similar to marriage protections that have been adopted in 26 other states.

"This signifies the fact that California voters really do favor and will come out to vote for the protection of historic marriage," said Ron Prentice, executive director of ProtectMarriage.com, a coalition of religious and social conservative groups behind the initiative.

In response to the court's May 15 ruling, California public health officials already have amended marriage license applications to read "Party A" and "Party B" instead of bride and groom. Local officials have been told to start issuing the revised licenses to same-sex couples on June 17.

Homosexuals would still be able to get married between then and the election, even with the initiative pending, unless the court agrees to stay its decision until after Nov. 4, as the amendment's sponsors have requested.

If the marriages proceed during the next five months, it is unclear whether they would be nullified if the amendment passes. Some legal scholars have said the state Supreme Court might get called on again to settle that question.

Kate Kendell, executive director of the San Francisco-based National Center for Lesbian Rights, said advocates of same-sex marriage have already launched a campaign to defeat the measure. "There is just so much at stake, now, in terms of what kind of state we are going to live in and what values we are going to uphold," Kendell said.

To qualify for the ballot, the measure needed 694,354 petition signatures, an amount equal to eight percent of the votes cast during the last governor's race. Proponents submitted 1,120,801 signatures in late April, and county clerks determined the measure qualified by verifying the validity of three percent of the signatures they received, according to Bowen.

California residents have already spoken on the issue of homosexual marriage, passing Proposition 22, the defense of marriage act, by a 62 percent margin in March 2000.

[Soldier4Christ]

Bush supports putting marriage on ballot
'Judges presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization'

President Bush has supported a constitutional amendment that calls marriage the union of one man and one woman since he, in 2004, warned, "a few judges and local authorities are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilizations," and his opinions haven't changed, according to a spokeswoman.

The answer came from White House spokeswoman Dana Perino at a news briefing today. She said, "You know the president's position on this has been very clear."

She was responding to a question from Les Kinsolving, WND's correspondent at the White House, who asked, "As of yesterday, the California ballot this November will have the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman, which the president supports, doesn't he?"

Perino responded that Bush has been clear.

"And he does support it," Kinsolving asked.

"Let's go to your next question," she said.

It was in 2004 when Bush announced his desire for a constitutional marriage amendment in light of the newly decided – at that time – state court ruling in Massachusetts that declared the constitutionality of marriage certificates for same-sex duos.

He said the Defense of Marriage Act, at that time eight years old, was approved overwhelmingly in Congress.

"Those congressional votes and the passage of similar defensive marriage laws in 38 states express an overwhelming consensus in our country for protecting the institution of marriage," he said then. But he noted the "activist judges" and others continue to try to redefine the institution.

"Unless action is taken, we can expect more arbitrary court decisions, more litigation, more defiance of the law by local officials, all of which adds to uncertainty," he warned. "After more than two centuries of American jurisprudence, and millennia of human experience, a few judges and local authorities are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization. Their actions have created confusion on an issue that requires clarity."

He said the "one recourse" left is to "enact a constitutional amendment to protect marriage in America. … An amendment to the Constitution is never to be undertaken lightly. … And the preservation of marriage rises to this level of national importance."

"Ages of experience have taught humanity that the commitment of a husband and wife to love and to serve one another promotes the welfare of children and the stability of society," he concluded.

However, since then, support for a U.S. Constitutional amendment has not been assembled, and Bush's forecasts have come true, with the latest issue being created by the California Supreme Court which ruled in May that state laws limiting marriage to one man and one woman are unconstitutional.

Already in the works in that state was a plan to submit the issue to voters, as an amendment to the state constitution. Just yesterday, state officials confirmed enough signatures had been validated to put that issue on this November's ballot.

That campaign was assembled by Ron Prentice, CEO of the California Family Council. Prentice also serves as chairman of the ProtectMarriage.com campaign.

The amendment reads: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

Liberty Counsel, one of the legal groups working on the case, recently filed a request for the state Supreme Court to stay its May 15 ruling.

"Now that we know for certain the California Marriage Protection Act will appear on the November ballot, the California Supreme Court must stay its decision. Issuing a stay is the only course of action. The people of California will have the final say on marriage. I have no doubt that when the people vote, they will affirm marriage as one man and one woman," said Mathew D. Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel and dean of Liberty University School of Law.

In a second question, Kinsolving asked, "The New York Times editorial page commends Sen. McCain for promising, if he is elected, to bring the hallowed British parliament's prime minister's question time to Congress. And my question: Would the president be willing to try this just once as a sampling before the election?"

"As entertaining as that might be, I think we'll let – the next president can decide if they want to do that or not," Perino said.

"Well, the next – don't you think that McCain is going to be the next president?" Kinsolving said.

"I do, and we'll let him decide," Perino said.

"And he has decided, so why doesn't this president break it in?" Kinsolving asked.

"It's a great idea. It would be a lot of fun for you to cover," she said.

[Soldier4Christ]

Democratic Party endorses homosexual marriage

California Supreme Court refuses pleas from attorneys general in 10 states to delay homosexual marriage

On June 3, the Democratic National Committee issued a 2008 Gay PRIDE proclamation supporting homosexual marriage. DNC Chairman Howard Dean and Representatives Barney Frank and Tammy Baldwin released the proclamation.

Democrats Issue 2008 Gay PRIDE Proclamation Supporting Homosexual Marriage
 
Democrat National Committee
June 3, 2008

Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean today joined Massachusetts Democratic Representative Barney Frank and Wisconsin Democratic Representative Tammy Baldwin in issuing the following Proclamation marking PRIDE Month:

"Today, on behalf of Democrats across America, we join together in celebrating the contributions that lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Americans and their families make to our society and reaffirm our Party's commitment to promoting full equality under the law for every American.

"As leaders of the Democratic Party, we stand proudly with the LGBT community and commit ourselves to working together to build an America that is truly inclusive. Every American has the right to live in dignity, with equal rights, responsibilities and protections under the law.

These are our country's and our Party's core values. Across the country, at every level of government, Democrats have championed sweeping protections in the areas of employment, housing, domestic partnerships and civil unions, adoption, gender identity or expression, and hate crimes.

We need to pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, pass the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Act, and repeal 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell.' We need a comprehensive, science-based strategy for combating HIV/AIDS. We must address the socioeconomic problems, including poverty and limited access to health care, that increase vulnerability to this disease.

"To do all of these things we need to put a Democrat in the White House, expand our majorities in Congress, and elect more Democrats at the local and state level across the country. To do that, we need you. Get active, get involved, and join us so we can take our country back."

Also, in a display of sheer arrogance, the California Supreme Court has refused to delay legalization of homosexual marriage until after the people of California have a chance to vote on the issue in November. Attorneys general from 10 states asked the activist judges to delay implementing their ruling, citing the millions of dollars in litigation it will cost their respective states and the legal chaos caused by the California Supreme Court.

These activist judges clearly showed their goal is to force homosexual marriage on every American. The only way America can protect itself from such radical judges is through an amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Congressman Paul Broun of Georgia has introduced the Marriage Protection Amendment of 2008 (H.J. RES. 89). This amendment would make marriage legal only between a man and a woman.

American Family Association is attempting to get 1,000,000 emails sent to Congress. Their system will automatically send it to your representative asking him or her to co-sponsor H.J. RES. 89. They have 125,000 so far. Their system will automatically detect if your representative is one of the 18 co-sponsors and present you with a suggested "thank you" e-mail. If he or she is not a co-sponsor, our system will present you with an e-mail message urging your Member of Congress to support H.J. RES. 89 - the Marriage Protection Amendment (2008).

[nChrist]

WOW! - WHAT VALUES?

The Democrats actually want to proclaim gay pride as their core values? This is hard to believe, but I guess that nothing is too wild these days. It wasn't too long ago that something like this would have removed a political party from the public scene forever. All I want to know is what it takes to wake the American people up?

[Soldier4Christ]

All I want to know is what it takes to wake the American people up?

The arrival of Jesus just might do it.

[Soldier4Christ]

Biblical marriage vs. CA courts: Ruling today

Pro-family attorneys are trying another legal route to block implementation of so-called "gay marriage" in California this evening.

 

The California Supreme Court has rejected appeals of its ruling that the state must issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples beginning at 5:01 p.m. (local time) today. But the Supreme Court's decision merely hands the case back down to the California Court of Appeal, which is charged with deciding how and when to implement the high court's ruling. It is that power that Matt Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel, is appealing to now.
 
"It should clearly be stayed because the people are going to vote in November with regards to the California marriage protection amendment. That's a matter that, in fact, we addressed before the California Supreme Court, which they denied. However, the California Court of Appeals has a separate, independent obligation to consider this matter as well," contends the attorney.
 
Liberty Counsel filed a petition last week with the appeals court on behalf of the Campaign for California Families, asking the court to delay issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples for that and other reasons. "The California Supreme Court only addressed two of the many statutes regarding marriage. You can't simply address two statutes when there's [sic] literally hundreds of others, all of which reference 'men' and 'women,' 'male' and 'female,' 'husband' and 'wife,' all of which have to be addressed," Staver explains.
 
The Liberty Counsel chairman says failure to take matters such as that under consideration is one of the primary reasons the U.S. and state constitutions do not let judges write laws. "All of the confusion illustrates one point: judges should not be in the business of being politically active lawmakers," Staver points out.
 
The appeals court, according to the attorney, should stay the decision to give the legislature time to examine the hundreds of other state statutes that could come into conflict with the Supreme Court's ruling. "It's that court which is tasked with implementing the particular ruling. It's at that level we're asking, now, this court to do its job, to follow the rule of law and to stay this decision," Staver says.
 
Liberty Counsel's press release says this case "is far from over. We will not give up. The people will have the final say on marriage."

[Soldier4Christ]

Homeschoolers' fate hangs on hearing results
Court's earlier opinion said parents don't have right to teach children

The 2nd District Court of Appeal in Los Angeles is scheduled to hear oral arguments Monday in the Rachel L. case, the startling ruling released in February in which the judges concluded there was no constitutional or statutory provision for parents to homeschool their children.

The case immediately sparked nationwide outrage, up to the White House and Congress, which approved a resolution calling for a rehearing, and the court panel's judges eventually scheduled new arguments in the dispute, effectively overturning their own earlier ruling.

Kevin Snider, chief counsel for the Pacific Justice Institute, is to argue the legality of homeschooling under both state law and constitutional law as a representative of the private Christian school that provided the overarching program in which the family participated.

An estimated 166,000 children are being homeschooled in California, and their future also will be argued by Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation, who represents the father in the case, along with the Alliance Defense Fund.

The Home School Legal Defense Association, the nation's premiere homeschooling advocacy organization, also has been assisting in preparation of the arguments, which will be in addition to the arguments from the various components of California's education industry, education agencies and teachers' unions.

"We are looking forward to this opportunity to defend the thousands of families who are making sacrifices to teach their children at home. The state should be applauding, not threatening, these families," said Brad Dacus, president of PJI.

"We hope that the court reverses its decision and restores homeschool freedom to California," said Michael Farris, chairman of the HSLDA.

In 1925, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the rights of parents to oversee the education of their children, stating, "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 child is not the mere creature of the state; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations," according to Liberty Counsel, which also is working on the case.

The court's earlier opinion originated with a juvenile case, but concluded that parents without mandatory credentials from state agencies and teachers' unions do not have the right to school their children at home.

Liberty Counsel filed a brief on behalf of 19 members of Congress providing an overview of education laws in all 50 states.

In another brief, filed 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.

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.

"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.

The original opinion 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 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.

[nChrist]

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.

Maybe they could get bright and check under RELIGIOUS FREEDOM. That's been around longer than public education. They might also look at the history of education and see that the foundation was Religious - INCLUDING the institutions of higher learning. In fact, nearly all of the universities were Christian, and the BIG-NAME SCHOOLS that have been around long enough were nearly all Christian Schools. The biggest thing they need to discover is that Religious Freedom is a RIGHT, not something that California can decide whether to grant or not. If California doesn't grant it, they will be violating the civil and Constitutional rights of citizens under the COLOR OF LAW. Many violations of this nature have prescribed PRISON SENTENCES. I would find it impossible for the authorities and courts of California to claim IGNORANCE of such basic RIGHTS. Regardless, IGNORANCE would be no EXCUSE for violation of the Law. This would be a very silly argument on their part, but California officials and courts have a lengthy history of BEING SILLY!

[Soldier4Christ]

This would be a very silly argument on their part, but California officials and courts have a lengthy history of BEING SILLY![/b]

You're to easy on them, brother. 

[HisDaughter]

Courts to overturn parental discipline?

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=67479


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A father in Canada grounded his daughter from a school trip because she disobeyed his orders to stay off the Internet, but a court overturned the punishment.

According to Agence France-Presse, Justice Suzanne Tessier in Quebec Superior Court ordered the grounding for the 12-year-old girl lifted, prompting the father's lawyer, Kim Beaudoin, to warn, "Parents are going to be walking on egg shells from now on."

The father had ordered his daughter, who was not identified by the report, to remain off the Internet. She didn't, chatting on websites her father had tried to block and then posting "inappropriate" pictures of herself online using a friend's Internet portal.

As punishment, the father refused to let her go on a scheduled school trip, so the 12-year-old went to Canada's judicial system to get her way.

Beaudoin told AFP the punishment was for her own protection, and he is pursuing an appeal.

"She's a child," Beaudoin said. "At her age, children test their limits and it's up to their parents to set boundaries."

The lawyer said she'll try to "re-establish" parental authority and to make sure the judge's opinion doesn't set a precedent.

"I think most children respect their parents and would never go so far as to take them to court, but it's clear that some would and we have to ask ourselves how far this will go," Beaudoin said.

Court records indicated the 12-year-old's violation of her home's Internet rules was just one in a list of instructions that she had violated. But Tessier said the punishment was just too much.

[nChrist]

Courts to overturn parental discipline?

Hello GrammyLuv,

This is the most ridiculous article I've ever read. If that had been my 12 year old, the board of education would have been applied to the seat of learning. The only other choice offered would have been to become a ward of the state. I would have told the Judge to raise my daughter however they wanted to, but it wouldn't be in my house with my money. Further, the restrictions would have gotten 10 times worse - regardless of what the judge said. SO, the judge could have chosen my house or her house. My house would be with my rules - end of story! The state could feed and care for me also as long as they wanted to, and the answer would be the same. I've never heard of anything this INSANE! - but this is another sign of the times. The ONLY possible answer to something like this would be NO! - END OF STORY!

[Soldier4Christ]

Amen!

It is going to come down to just that. Parents will have to stand up to this or loose all rights and freedoms.

[HisDaughter]

Hello GrammyLuv,

This is the most ridiculous article I've ever read. If that had been my 12 year old, the board of education would have been applied to the seat of learning. The only other choice offered would have been to become a ward of the state. I would have told the Judge to raise my daughter however they wanted to, but it wouldn't be in my house with my money. Further, the restrictions would have gotten 10 times worse - regardless of what the judge said. SO, the judge could have chosen my house or her house. My house would be with my rules - end of story! The state could feed and care for me also as long as they wanted to, and the answer would be the same. I've never heard of anything this INSANE! - but this is another sign of the times. The ONLY possible answer to something like this would be NO! - END OF STORY!

Amen!

It is going to come down to just that. Parents will have to stand up to this or loose all rights and freedoms.

I absolutely agree.  I'm wondering how it even got to court???  It doesn't say, but this is absolutely ludicrous.