UFI

Posts Tagged ‘Judges’

Opinion Essay: I Thought Prop 8 Passed. Why do I Still Need to Worry About It?

In Same-Sex Marriage on March 2, 2009 at 11:36 am

ufilogoBecause the Governor, the Attorney General, the Legislature and the Supreme Court of California, along with the cities of Los Angeles, San Francisco and Santa Clara are all conspiring to once again overturn the vote of the people last Nov. 4th. The State Supreme Court will hear arguments and is expected to nullify Prop 8 this Thursday, March 5th!

Why is it important that Prop 8 not be overturned?

1. To Protect our Democracy: The People rule the government in America, not vice-versa!

Prop 8 was written to protect the will of the people of California from being overruled by a handful of politicians in Sacramento and San Francisco. Twice now the people have clearly voted that they want marriage to remain as it has always been, and now once again our government is going to nullify our vote. Allowing four activist judges to overrule the decision of the entire state brings us back to the days of the tyrannies of King George before the Revolution. We live in America and here the people decide their laws. If the people of California want to change the institution of marriage let them so vote in a legal election!

2. To Protect our Civil and Religious Rights: It is not a hate crime to oppose homosexuality!

Our country was founded to be a safe-haven where all men and women could say and practice what they believe without persecution. Americans have fought and died to protect these fundamental freedoms of speech and religious worship. In recent years, however, homosexuals have pressured individuals, private organizations and churches to accept their actions, labeling those who oppose on moral and religious ground as “narrow-minded,” “homophobic” and “bigoted.” Already homosexuals have successfully sued a private photographer in New Mexico who refused to photograph a lesbian wedding, a New Jersey church that refused to allow gay couple to be married on their property, a gynecologist in California for referring the in vitro fertilization of a lesbian to an associate due to religious beliefs and the Boy Scouts in Berkeley, Calif. for excluding gay men. A Boston Catholic adoption service was forced to close rather than be required to adopt to gay couples and the Christian dating site eHarmony.com was forced to provide dating services for gay and transsexual individuals. Already religious leaders have been prosecuted for making “disparaging” remarks about homosexuality—even reading straight out of the Bible!—and the tax-exempt status of their churches threatened. The names of individuals who donated money in support of Prop 8 were listed on websites by the LA Times, SF Chronicle and Google with encouragement to harass them; several revealed donors were consequently dismissed from their jobs for their support for traditional marriage. There is no place in America for silencing religious belief or coercing people and organizations to support a behavior that goes against their conscience!

3. To Protect Parental Rights: Kids should not be taught in public schools that homosexuality is okay.

At a young, impressionable age it is especially important that our children be taught correct principles and morals. Since California law requires teachers to instruct children as young as kindergartners about marriage (Education Code §51890), when Prop 8 is overturned teachers will be required to contradict the moral convictions of the majority of the parents and teach our children that there is no difference between gay marriage and traditional man-woman marriage and that homosexuality is healthy and normal. When one Massachusetts couple tried to prevent their child from being indoctrinated with homosexual teachings in a public school, they were told by the Court of Appeals that because their state recognized gay marriage they did not have a right to opt their children out of it. One 8th grade science teacher in Massachusetts proudly told NPR that she now teaches her classes how to use sex toys and in San Francisco a first grade class went on a field trip to watch a lesbian wedding. It is wrong for our state to teach our children morals that we don’t agree with behind our backs.

4. To Protect our Society and Children: Stable Families = Well-Raised Children = Stable Society

The entire history of mankind offers proof that children are best raised in a stable family of a woman and man who commit to come together for life to support and nurture them. Marriage was created to promote and support this ideal family arrangement. With the increase of children born or raised outside of this ideal, especially those abused or neglected by unfit parents, it is more important than ever that the ideal child-raising situation be honored and protected. A Dutch study concluded that gay couples cannot provide a stable child-raising situation, noting that the average homosexual relationship lasts 1.5 years and even “committed” homosexual couples average eight sexual partners outside of the relationship per year. By diluting marriage to include any relationship desired, we will seriously undermine its meaning and value; hence, our society and children will suffer.

5. Gay “Marriage” Is NOT About “Love” or “Civil Rights”: It is about forcing approval of homosexuality

Homosexuals defend their intimidation and undemocratic actions by claiming that their “civil rights” are being violated when they are not allowed to “follow their hearts” and have their relationships recognized by all as marriage. In reality, however, gays already have every right that heterosexuals do: They can marry or remain single, and they can engage in any kind of relationship or activity they desire, so long as it is legal. California has even created “domestic partnerships” as an alternative for committed same-sex couples to “have the same rights, protections and benefits…as married spouses.” (California Family Code §297.5) There is no restriction whatsoever on a gay couple’s ability to love or practice sexual relations with their partner. But homosexuals are not satisfied with mere tolerance or equal rights: their agenda is to force everyone to approve of their actions. Homosexuals do not have the right to take away everyone else’s rights by forcing them to change their definition of the fundamental unit of society to include same-sex relationships. Already polygamists and pedophiles have begun to cite gay marriage laws as legal justification for their actions. To be able to force everyone to recognize anything you want to be marriage is not a civil right!

Marriage is not a vehicle for social recognition of morally taboo behaviors. It is a protected and honored arrangement designed to promote the raising of children in an ideal environment, the way nature intended. Prop 8 is not about denying rights to homosexuals: They retain every right that heterosexuals do . . . plus the right to a same-sex “civil union” that state law ensures is equal to marriage in all ways but name. They have no right to force the rest of society to change their moral convictions to fit their fancy. Twice, the people of California voted in fair elections for marriage to remain solely between a man and a woman. The government of California should abide by the democratic voice of its people and not tyrannically impose its will on them.

SOURCE: Good Sense Politics

UFI at CPAC: February 27 Update

In Meet UFI on February 27, 2009 at 10:06 pm

ufilogoFor the second day in a row, the 2009 edition of CPAC focused the conversation on the economy. Barack Obama’s plan to save the economy was discussed and many conservative alternatives to the president’s plan were offered. Rep. Jason Chaffetz from Utah submitted to the conference that the United States cannot continue to run the country on a credit card. Former Governor Mitt Romney and other business minds floated the idea of cutting all taxes in half, while eliminating the capital gains tax for the middle class. The economy aside, the family was mentioned by several speakers.

Dr. Larry Eastland, a man who has held several positions from White House staffer to statistical analyst to author and U.S. Marine, shared that of all the jobs he has had, the job of grandfather has been his favorite.  Dr. Eastland spoke of the importance of his family in his life and in his success.  He also spoke of the need to preserve freedoms, while holding individuals accountable for their actions.

Rep. Ron Paul, a medical doctor who has delivered over 4,000 babies spoke on abortion.  Rep. Paul, who is pro-life, stated that the decision of abortion should be a state decision, not  a federal one. He said that state legislatures should have the power to pass their own abortion legislation and that if the courts were needed, the State Supreme Court, not the U.S. Supreme Court should make the ruling. 

Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney delivered one of the better speeches of the day. In the speech, Gov. Romney denounced liberal activist judges who seek to legislate from the bench. He spoke of the disregard for democracy as non-elected judges re-write the constitution. Gov. Romney pleaded with conservatives everywhere to stand up for their values as several important principles come under fire.

UFI added several signatures for the U.N. Petition to Protect Life, bringing the total number of signatures gathered at CPAC to just under 400.

SEE ALSO: UFI at CPAC: February 26 Update

International News Headlines: February ’09 Edition

In The Family on February 13, 2009 at 1:05 am

ufilogoSpanish Families Defy Mandatory Homosexual Indoctrination in New Video

Spanish families who are resisting their government’s mandatory homosexualist indoctrination program have made a video expressing their defiance.  “We’re not giving in” says one mother. “We’re not going to enter the classes,” say two teenagers.  “We’re going to continue fighting … for our freedom and the freedom of all,” say two groups of families. 

The video has appeared in the wake of a recent decision by the Spanish Supreme Court, which has not been formally announced yet, but which purportedly confirms that the government may compel students to take the course, which is entitled “Education for Citizenship and Human Rights.”

Although the course is billed as a type of civics instruction, it has been criticized for promoting secularist values strongly opposed to Christianity, including homosexualist ideology.

Massive German Study Confirms Abortion Significantly Increases Premature Birth Risk

A huge German study has further substantiated the link between abortion history and an increased risk of future premature births.  The German study joins a solid body of evidence showing the increased risk of preterm births for children who are brought to term after a previous abortion. 

Why, instead of chasing criminals, are police asking children to write essays about gay pride?

It takes pride in its reputation as one of the most gay-friendly employers in the country.  But the Kent Police force has been accused of going too far after inviting children under the age of 14 to write about their feelings on homosexuality and transsexuality as part of a competition. The force is offering a £25 prize to the child who submits the best 200-word essay on the subject. 

Ireland to refuse adoption rights for gay couples

The Irish government published the Adoption Bill 2009 last month.  It limits access to adoption to married couples and individuals, excluding non-married same-sex and opposite-sex couples.

Tiny Fetal Models Cause Uproar in Dutch Media and Parliament

The model of an unborn child carried in the annual March for Life in Amsterdam has caused a firestorm in Holland.  A photo of the tiny fetal model was pictured on the front page of the Dutch Christian newspaper “Het Nederlands Dagblad” in December after the march. The front-page coverage garnered other media attention, television interviews and even angry reactions in the House of Representatives of the Dutch government. 

The two inch long model represents a fetus at ten weeks of actual length and weight. “At four weeks the heart of the unborn beats; the model shows that it is a child with hands, feet and a nose even able to bring its finger to its mouth” according to the Dutch pro-life group Cry for Life. 

Pro-Abortion Marie Stopes Eager for American Funds to Promote Abortion in Kenya

The leader of the Kenyan division of Marie Stopes, one of the worlds largest abortion providers, has told an AP reporter that he is eager to receive American funds now that President Obama has rescinded the Mexico City Policy.

The Mexico City Policy is a Reagan-era directive that prohibits pro-abortion overseas organizations from receiving American taxpayer dollars.  Obama repealed the policy three days after his inauguration, making hundreds of millions in foreign aid money available to such groups.

Thanks to the policy, abortion facilities that would have made abortion available to Kenyan women were forced to close, and contraception became less available, according to Marie Stops Kenya.  Now groups like Marie Stopes Kenya, who were “limping along” on European aid, are lining up to apply for American aid.

The Intolerance of Those Demanding Tolerance

In Same-Sex Marriage on February 8, 2009 at 9:58 pm

ufilogo

I never cease to be amazed at the rationales, excuses, and bizarre lengths that some people will go to attack those of us, like myself, who supported Proposition 8 in the last election.

For those hate mongers who simply cannot bear the fact that Proposition 8 won, and have decided that those who supported it need to be vilified, attacked, and destroyed, I am pretty easy to find. Not only did I support Proposition 8, and vote for it, but I was a lead attorney in a lawsuit to invalidate the Same Sex Marriage licenses issued in response to the California State Supreme Court Ruling–that ruling created a “constitutional right” of homosexual marriage. Further, to add more flames to the fire, I was up all night on election night, one of 140+ attorneys who were designated to monitor the Registrars of Voters in counties around the state, to ensure fairness in the vote.

Even more to the chagrin of those of you who are the real haters in this situation, I will be filing one or more briefs with the California State Supreme Court defending the passage of Proposition 8 in the November, 2008, election.

Since the passage of Proposition 8, I have learned of racial epithets being hurled at Blacks who supported Proposition 8. I have read about death threats and violence directed at those who supported Proposition 8. I have learned of people being forced out of their jobs, or harassed at work, for having the audacity to contribute money to the Yes on Proposition 8 campaign.

I have read about the extreme lengths that those who cannot stand the fact that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Saints supported Proposition 8 have gone to vilify and attack that church. Nowhere, however, have I seen any attacks against the Black churches that went to the same, if not even greater, lengths to elect Barack Obama as President of the United States. It appears that church involvement in elections is only “evil” if it offends the activists in the homosexual movement, and their leftist allies.

It is amazing to me that those who cried for “fairness” during the last election, and who continually ask for tolerance for their lifestyles, not only show no tolerance for those who oppose them, but promote outright hate against those that oppose them.

Despite all the protestations of many in the homosexual movement, this lack of tolerance for opponents is nothing new.

In 1990, I was appointed to the San Diego City Human Relations Commission (“HRC”) by then San Diego City Councilman Bruce Henderson. Bruce took a lot of heat for appointing me, but he wanted someone with legal experience to keep an eye on the HRC. As it turned out, my experience in Constitutional law resulted in stopping unconstitutional actions of the HRC, as the San Diego City Attorney’s Office, at my urging, ruled that certain of the proposed actions of the HRC would violate the due process rights of individuals and businesses targeted by the HRC.

As I did not live within the city limits of the City of San Diego, the San Diego City Council had to grant a waiver, so that I could sit on the Commission. It did so unanimously. I was, it was acknowledged, the “token conservative” on the HRC,

Having gone through a childhood where I was short, fat, wore glasses, had a bizarre last name, and “my mommy dressed me funny”, I had developed a pretty thick skin. However, nothing could have prepared me for what I went through while sitting on that Commission.

During the 1980′s, I had publicly objected to a “trial balloon” “sent up” by then Governor Jerry Brown. He had proposed the idea of having a quota system for homosexual judges on the California Bench. My expressed position was that Judges should not be picked on the basis of their sexual orientation, they should be picked on the basis of their abilities. Nothing much came of it at the time, however, after I was appointed to the HRC, that stance was raised by activists in the homosexual community in San Diego. I later found out from two reporters that the local chapter of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) had been keeping a file on me for a number of years and had provided copies of part of that file to homosexual activists and to the media. The purpose was to try to drive me off of the Commission. This was around the same time that it was revealed that the ADL Office in Los Angeles had been raided by the FBI, for buying police intelligence files, as part of their monitoring of people they considered to be their opponents, on both the left and on the right.

The resulting campaign of harassment forced me to keep my now deceased wife and my stepdaughter away from the meetings, due to the violence that they might have been subjected to, had it been discovered that they were, indeed, my wife and stepdaughter.

Somehow, my unlisted home phone number was obtained, and I received harassing phone calls on it and at my law office. I had people telling me that I had “better not” attend any more meetings of the Commission. From what I understand, death threats were leveled against me through the City Council Offices, and the result was that I was escorted to and from the meetings, through back stairways, by San Diego City Police Department Officers.

At the meetings, the 15-person Commission was set up in a horseshoe-shaped series of tables. At the direction of the Chairman of the Commission, I was seated at one end of the horseshoe, closest to the podium. During virtually every meeting for months, I was subjected to having blood-soaked cotton balls thrown at me, after they had been used to daub open sores on people, used condoms were launched at me, and I was subjected to the most vile and horrible comments. None of this was stopped, or even objected to, by the Chairman of the Commission, for it was his intention to force me off of the HRC. Concern was raised for my safety by the City, and 2-6 police officers, uniformed and plain clothes, attended the Commission meetings for months.

People were literally afraid to speak in my defense at the sessions, for fear of retaliation by the radical homosexual activists. Finally, one night, a group of Black men appeared at the meeting. They signed up for their time to speak, and they all donated their time to one man. That man, a rather imposing young Black man, got up and said that he did not know me, had never met me, but had heard what was going on in the commission meetings. He said he was there to support me, as I was simply standing up for what I believed was right, and that was all part of what America was about. When it appeared that some people in the audience were objecting to his stance in support of me, the other Black men that came with him made it clear that, if anyone attempted to attack this man, he would be defended. That man was Pastor Adelaide Mac, who I met shortly thereafter, and who I have considered a friend ever since.

The Chairman of the Commission wanted me off the HRC so badly that he even had the Commission vote to dissolve itself, believing that I would never be reappointed to the Commission when the entire Commission was reappointed.
Homosexual activists in the community told the media, where it was reported, that they had the votes to get me off the Commission, and that I would never be put back on. Unfortunately for them, then Mayor Maureen O’Connor publicly announced that she would not even put the issue of the dissolving of the Commission on the agenda. Her comments were essentially that, if the people that opposed me could not live with a 14 to 1 vote on issues, that was not her problem, and that she was not going to set the precedent of dissolving a commission just to get rid of one person with politically unpopular views.

When the time came for my two-year term to end, the council member that had succeeded Bruce Henderson did not even bother to replace me for six months into the next term. In the meantime, the attacks on groups like the Boy Scouts of America, and other groups that did not conform to political correctness, had no longer become 14 to 1 votes. Others on the Commission were joining with me on certain issues. In fact, when the Chairman pushed the idea of dissolving the Commission to get me off of it, there was only 10 votes for, 4 against, with 1 abstention. Even though I was supposedly the “token conservative,” other members of the Commission started having problems with the way that I was being treated and started to understand that I was not the “evil being” that some activists in the homosexual community had tried to portray me as. I later learned that other activists in the homosexual community were appalled by the treatment of me, being rightly concerned that such treatment of me would hurt their cause.

The intolerance of certain elements in the homosexual community is nothing new. They have been emboldened by their recent successes in the courts, which have created new rights out of “whole cloth,” and their ultimate goal is to destroy all opposition to their agenda.

Had Proposition 8 not passed, it would have been a very short jump to where Pastors in California were being criminally prosecuted for opposing homosexuality from the pulpit. This has already happened in Canada, Sweden, and in other countries. That may still happen, but, at least for now, Proposition 8 provides a bulwark against the attempts to erode the Freedom of Speech of those who oppose the homosexual agenda.

Sincerely,

Gary G. Kreep

SOURCE: USJF

Prop. 8 UPDATE: Supreme Court sets March 5 for gay marriage arguments

In Same-Sex Marriage on February 4, 2009 at 9:27 am

ufilogoFrom the LA Times:

The California Supreme Court announced today that it will hear oral arguments on the legality of the state’s gay marriage ban on March 5.

The hearing is one of the most anticipated in the court’s history. Supporters and opponents of Proposition 8 will make their case about whether the measure should be invalidated. Pro-gay marriage groups filed a lawsuit after the November election, saying the gay marriage ban violated the state Constitution. Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown at first said he would defend Proposition 8, but then he changed his mind and argued that it was unconstitutional. Backers of the measure have filed briefs supporting the ban.

Other Prop. 8 UPDATES:
Prop. 8 UPDATE: Judge Refuses Anonymity to Donors
Prop. 8 UPDATE: Militant Homosexual Rights Movement Keeps The Pressure On
Prop. 8 UPDATE: Legal Briefs Filed
Prop. 8 UPDATE: CA Attorney General Changes Position

Justice Department Nominees Worry Pro-Family Movement

In Abortion, Same-Sex Marriage on February 2, 2009 at 12:55 pm

ufilogoCNA Reports:

Confirmation hearings for President Barack Obama’s Department of Justice nominees are reportedly proceeding so quickly that Republicans and outside groups are unable to make meaningful criticisms of their intense support for abortion rights and other moral issues. One critic said the nominations portend the most “Culture of Death” justice department in American history.

“We are on the brink of having the most Culture of Death, anti-family Justice Department ever,” Leonard Leo, former Co-Chairman of the Republican National Committee Catholic Outreach and Chairman of Students for Life of America, told CNA in an e-mail.

The first controversial Obama nominee is David Ogden, whose confirmation hearing for Deputy Attorney General is scheduled for next week, less than one month after his nomination. In an amicus brief for the 1992 Planned Parenthood v. Casey decision which reaffirmed Roe v. Wade’s mandating of permissive abortion laws, Ogden argued that abortion “rarely causes or exacerbates psychological or emotional problems.”

“The few women who do experience negative psychological responses after abortion appear to be those with preexisting emotional problems,” he continued.

He argued that evidence shows abortion is more likely to make women “experience feelings of relief and happiness” and claimed childbirth and childrearing or adoption may pose “concomitant (if not greater) risks or adverse psychological effects” compared to the effects of abortion.

Thomas Perelli, the nominee for Associate Attorney General, is the second person pro-life and pro-family advocates are concerned about. Perelli is best known for representing the husband of Terri Schiavo in his effort to withdraw life-sustaining treatment from the severely injured woman.

President Obama has also chosen Dawn Johnson to head the Office of Legal Counsel. Johnson raises red flags for pro-lifers because she is a former counsel to the pro-abortion rights group NARAL. The Office of Legal Counsel provides the government with opinions about the constitutionality of proposed governmental acts.

The nominee for Solictor General, Elena Kagan, is reportedly a lesbian who strongly opposed the Solomon Amendment, which denies federal grants to institutions of higher education which forbid military recruitment or the Reserve Officer Training Corps from campus.

“A Deputy Attorney General who signed a brief in Casey dismissing the psychological harm caused by abortion. An Associate Attorney General who supported withdrawing Terry Schiavo’s life-sustaining treatment. An Assistant Attorney General who was counsel to NARAL. And a Solicitor General who has actively supported homosexual rights, particularly in regard to banning military recruiters on campus,” Leo summarized.

Prop 8. UPDATE: Judge Refuses Anonymity to Donors

In Same-Sex Marriage on February 2, 2009 at 11:09 am

ufilogoA federal judge just refused to grant a preliminary injunction protecting donors to Prop 8 from harassment.

This one judge refused any kind of immediate reasonable, legal protection–not just for big donors, but for every ordinary Californian who gave even a few bucks to protect marriage. He refused not just to protect their names, he refused to prevent the posting of their addresses on the Internet.

“…there is “systematic effort” to seek out Proposition 8 donors and harass them. ” –Ron Prentiss

All this in spite of documented evidence of property damage and threats to people’s livelihoods, even sporadic death threats–and an ongoing, organized, very open and public Internet-based campaign to target the homes and business of ordinary Californians who gave money to NOM California and Protect Marriage this fall.

These kinds of people should never have access to your home, your address, your vote. As Brian Brown of NOM told Fox News yesterday:

“Americans should be free to exercise our core civil rights to speak, to vote, or to donate in support of marriage without facing organized threats of retaliation as a result. We call on leaders of the gay marriage movement to call off their dogs and stop using threats and harassment as a political tactic. It will–and is–backfiring.” 

It goes against the very principles of freedom for the government to subject its citizens to these kinds of reprisals for expressing their constitutionally protected freedom of speech.

—Beetle Blogger

It Is A Solemn Day

In The Family on January 20, 2009 at 3:42 pm

ufilogoThe air is crisp and cold. Flags are waving. People are cheering. The military salutes. Another President is inaugurated. And people who care about families, marriage between a man and a woman, the sanctity of life and religious liberty stand by the side and wait with baited breath.

Is he really going to abolish all abortion restrictions?  Will he repeal the Defense of Marriage Act?  Will he appoint judges who will strip churches of their right to preach their beliefs?  Will he ask Congress to ratify the most terrifying treaty to come from the UN?

It is a solemn day when a President is inaugurated who promises to oppose the values that this country was founded on.

It is a solemn day when the strident voices of feminism at the United Nations are cheering.

It is a solemn day when those who feel the State has more say over the education of a child than the parents are giddy with enthusiasm.

It is a solemn day when those who promote the taking of the lives of unborn children are counting how many more abortions will now be able to take place.

It is a solemn day.

Those of us who have fought so hard to achieve the victories of the DOMA, Proposition 8, the defeat of the ratification CEDAW treaty, the rights of doctors to refuse abortions, and the ban on partial-birth abortions are saying, “We will not give up!” We will not allow the family to be destroyed! We will not allow our children to be raised by the State! We will not allow the gay-agenda to define the environment in which our children will be raised!

The battlefield is being readied. The forces are assembling. Choose to become engaged. Decide that you will be a part of the fight. United Families International will help you. We will be the voice of thousands around the world who want to be successful in this battle. Together we will fight for the values we hold most dear. Together we will defend families, sanctity of life, traditional marriage and religious liberty.

Beverly Rice, UFI President

Prop. 8 UPDATE: Legal Briefs Filed

In Same-Sex Marriage on January 7, 2009 at 10:13 am

ufilogoFrom the San Fransico Chronicle:

State Attorney General Jerry Brown was “profoundly wrong” and “invented an entirely new theory” when he urged the California Supreme Court to invalidate Proposition 8′s same-sex marriage ban on the basis that voters can’t be allowed to overturn fundamental liberties, attorneys for the measure said Monday.  Brown’s reasoning would confer upon the state Supreme Court power it has never had, attorneys Kenneth Starr and Andrew Pugno said in their response to the attorney general’s December brief.

Brown “is inviting this court to declare a constitutional revolution,” the attorneys argued in the 29-page response. “His extra-constitutional vision is one of unprecedented judicial hegemony, a sweeping power vested in the least-democratic branch that overrides the precious right of the people to determine how they will be governed.”

“The attorney general’s theory would fundamentally alter the role of the California judiciary,” said the attorneys for ProtectMarriage.com, the official proponents of Prop. 8.  “If the (initiative) process is done correctly, once the Constitution is changed, that’s the document the judges work from,” Pugno said in an interview. “This would put the court above the reach of the people when it came to amending the Constitution.”

The LA Times continued:

Gay-marriage opponents filed legal briefs Monday accusing California Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown of having “invented an entirely new theory,” one that “fails at every level,” in his quest to find a reason to invalidate Proposition 8, which passed with 52% of the vote in November.

“The people have the final word on what the California Constitution says,” lawyers for the Protect Marriage Coalition wrote. “The practical result of the attorney general’s theory is that the people can never amend the Constitution to overrule judicial interpretations of inalienable rights.”

Legal experts said Starr and the Protect Marriage coalition had made a strong counter-argument in their filing Monday.  Santa Clara University Law professor Gerald Uelmen, an expert on the state high court, said it “hits the nail on the head.”

“If you think of the Constitution as a compact between the people and those who govern us, to say the people have no power to amend a court’s ruling simply because the court . . . says this is an inalienable right — I think that is pretty far out.”

Prop. 8 UPDATE: CA Attorney General Changes Position

In Same-Sex Marriage on December 23, 2008 at 8:52 am

ufilogoThe U.S. News and World Report wrote on Dec. 22:

“Supporters of Proposition 8, the California initiative that eliminated the right of same-sex couples to marry last month, reacted with surprise and dismay this weekend to the announcement by the state’s attorney general that he had reversed his position and would ask California’s high court to invalidate the measure.

Jerry Brown, the state’s attorney general—and a leading candidate to replace Arnold Schwarzenegger as governor in two years—filed papers on Friday asking the state Supreme Court to overturn Proposition 8, which amends the state’s Constitution to define marriage as only between a man and a woman.

The decision is a major reversal for Brown, whose office argued against same-sex marriage in the spring, only to see the Supreme Court find a law banning gay marriage unconstitutional. After last month’s election, in which 52 percent of voters effectively reinstated that law by supporting Proposition 8, Brown again said he would support the will of the people.

In a brief filed on Friday, Brown abruptly changed sides, saying he had looked closely at state precedent and had concluded that he couldn’t defend the new law. “Proposition 8 must be invalidated because the amendment process cannot be used to extinguish fundamental constitutional rights without compelling justification,” Brown’s brief says. The state Supreme Court, in its decision earlier this year, found that gay couples enjoy the same fundamental right to marry that straight people do.”

National Review Online added:

“On Friday, California attorney general Jerry Brown decided not to honor an earlier promise to defend the constitutionality of Proposition 8, the state marriage amendment approved by voters on November 4. California voters were denied even a pro forma defense of the measure by the government official constitutionally charged to enforce state law — because he just changed his mind.

Opponents of the measure, including the city and county of San Francisco, then filed suit saying that Proposition 8’s single-sentence amendment was such a major change to the state constitution that it should have been approved by the legislature before going to voters and was thereby invalid. (This same legislature had twice voted to overturn California’s marriage law, enacted by voter initiative, despite a clear constitutional provision saying that a voter initiative could not be overturned by a legislative vote.) This is the case in which the attorney general has now decided that defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman is beyond the pale.

Ken Starr will be part of the legal team defending Proposition 8 on behalf of its proponents. It should be remembered that these proponents were granted the right to defend the marriage law only because the California supreme court gave them special permission to be part of the case. Without that permission, Proposition 8 would have gone without a voice in court.

All of this serves to confirm the worst fears of Proposition 8’s supporters. The political and legal elites of the state have done all within their power to endorse the idea that support for traditional marriage is the rankest kind of bigotry that does not deserve even a nominal word in its favor by government officials.

If Proposition 8 does not hold, this new dogma will be the official state policy — and this in spite of a clear legal mandate of the voters of the state to the contrary.

A court order invalidating Proposition 8 would also give the supreme court a super-constitutional power, above the amendment process provided for in the text of the constitution, to determine what subjects are germane to constitutional lawmaking by the people of the state. There is no other way to understand this new theory that a manufactured and unenumerated “right” can become so “fundamental” that it can no longer be the subject of a simple amendment. And, of course, who will decide whether a right has attained this stature? The California supreme court. 

The question now appears to be whether the California supreme court will step away from the brink of legal chaos and affirm the principle that the government of California will be a government of laws and not of men and women.”

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 139 other followers