Religions > Atheism > Promoters of Calif. Homosexual 'Marriage' Bill Not Above the Law
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"RoB WAde" |
| Date: |
28 Apr 2005 03:51:17 PM |
| Object: |
Promoters of Calif. Homosexual 'Marriage' Bill Not Above the Law |
Promoters of Calif. Homosexual 'Marriage' Bill Not Above the Law
By Lynn D. Wardle and Randy Thomasson
April 27, 2005
(AgapePress) - No lawmaker is above the law or the people. Yet state
legislators who are pushing AB 19 show no respect for the constitution,
laws or people of California.
AB 19, which would issue same-sex "marriage" licenses in every county
in California, passed the Assembly Judiciary Committee on April 26.
Coauthored by 30 Democrats, AB 19 would repeal the people's vote on
marriage. Displaying these legislators' sense of superiority over the
voters, AB 19 is as good or bad an example of arrogance you can find.
The Democrats who have coauthored this same-sex "marriage" bill
apparently think they're above the law and above the voters.
Five years ago, 61.4 percent of Californians approved Proposition 22,
the Protection of Marriage Initiative. The 14 words of the initiative
were carefully crafted, reading: "Only marriage between a man and a
woman is valid or recognized in California."
The main author of AB 19, Democrat Assemblyman Mark Leno of San
Francisco, claims that Prop. 22 forbids recognition of same-sex
marriages from other states while allowing the creation of same-sex
marriage here.
Mr. Leno is wrong. The drafters of Prop. 22 anticipated his ploy and
wrote Prop. 22 to specify only man-woman marriages are "valid" in
California.
The legal terms "valid" and "recognized" mean important things. To
"recognize" is to acknowledge, confirm, and give legal effect. It has
both domestic and interjurisdictional application. In a conflict of
laws, to "recognize" means one jurisdiction acknowledges and gives
legal effect to rights created in another jurisdiction.
Even stronger is "valid." According the Black's Law Dictionary, "valid"
means to have "legal strength or force," "good or sufficient in point
of law; efficacious" and "sustainable and effective in law."
By using the phrase "valid or recognized," Proposition 22 makes it
absolutely clear that same-sex marriage will not be legal in California
-- whether imported from other states or created here. The California
Court of Appeals in Knight v. Superior Court held exactly that in a
unanimous ruling earlier this month.
Where does this leave us? The California State Constitution provides
that voter-approved initiatives cannot be overturned by mere
legislation. This standard applies the people's vote on marriage, thus
rendering AB 19 unlawful and unconstitutional.
The state Legislature simply cannot create "same-sex marriage." The
politicians cannot repeal the people's vote.
If the Democrats who introduced AB 19 wish to delete the phrase "a man
and a woman" from California's marriage laws (which the bill actually
proposes to do), they must first convince the voters to pass another
ballot proposition creating same-sex "marriage" statewide.
However, unlike the widespread abundance of political arrogance in
Sacramento, voters are unlikely to change their minds on something as
sacred as marriage. Given the increased attacks upon marriage by judges
and politicians, it is predictable that Californians will ultimately
pass an amendment protecting marriage once and for all in the state
constitution.
As marriage for a man and a woman is completely natural, voter backlash
against out-of-touch politicians is both a natural and beneficial check
in our democracy.
.
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: Promoters of Calif. Homosexual 'Marriage' Bill Not Above the Law |
28 Apr 2005 10:50:48 PM |
|
|
On 28 Apr 2005 13:51:17 -0700, "RoB WAde" <rob_c_wade_1@yahoo.com>
drained his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly
proclaimed the following
Five years ago, 61.4 percent of Californians approved Proposition 22,
the Protection of Marriage Initiative. The 14 words of the initiative
were carefully crafted, reading: "Only marriage between a man and a
woman is valid or recognized in California."
And the courts have ruled that Prop 22 violated the California
Constitution
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/archive/2005/03/15/SAMESEX.TMP
ne.general, rec.scouting.issues, alt.politics.bush,
soc.culture.jewish, nyc.transit, alt.tv.simpsons, and az.general
snipped.
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
.
|
|
|
| User: "No One" |
|
| Title: Re: Promoters of Calif. Homosexual 'Marriage' Bill Not Above the Law |
01 May 2005 02:28:23 AM |
|
|
Douglas Berry <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> writes:
On 28 Apr 2005 13:51:17 -0700, "RoB WAde" <rob_c_wade_1@yahoo.com>
drained his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly
proclaimed the following
Five years ago, 61.4 percent of Californians approved Proposition 22,
the Protection of Marriage Initiative. The 14 words of the initiative
were carefully crafted, reading: "Only marriage between a man and a
woman is valid or recognized in California."
And the courts have ruled that Prop 22 violated the California
Constitution
.... due in part to Prop 22 being very poorly crafted! The wording is
sloppy. See
<http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2000/03/31/ED103402.DTL>
for an opinion on Prop 22 written by Leo Kanowitz, professor of law
emeritus, University of California's Hastings College of the Law.
Kanowitz (who talked primarily about the gramatical structure of the
proposition) concluded by stating,
The confusion created by the misplacement of the word ``only''
in Proposition 22 was sufficiently severe to have confused many
California voters. At the very least, the language renders it
vulnerable in an appropriate procedural context to a successful
attack in the courts.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Promoters of Calif. Homosexual 'Marriage' Bill Not Above the Law |
29 Apr 2005 01:04:31 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 03:50:48 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
On 28 Apr 2005 13:51:17 -0700, "RoB WAde" <rob_c_wade_1@yahoo.com>
drained his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly
proclaimed the following
Five years ago, 61.4 percent of Californians approved Proposition 22,
the Protection of Marriage Initiative. The 14 words of the initiative
were carefully crafted, reading: "Only marriage between a man and a
woman is valid or recognized in California."
And the courts have ruled that Prop 22 violated the California
Constitution
But only in Queerville, boy. It wasn't the "Courts" as you lie and
would like for us to believe, it was a "San Francisco" Court and
dealt only with Queerville. You sorry piece of dog *****.
.
|
|
|
| User: "AntiSocial" |
|
| Title: Re: Promoters of Calif. Homosexual 'Marriage' Bill Not Above theLaw |
01 May 2005 02:06:41 AM |
|
|
wrote:
On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 03:50:48 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
On 28 Apr 2005 13:51:17 -0700, "RoB WAde" <rob_c_wade_1@yahoo.com>
drained his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly
proclaimed the following
Five years ago, 61.4 percent of Californians approved Proposition 22,
the Protection of Marriage Initiative. The 14 words of the initiative
were carefully crafted, reading: "Only marriage between a man and a
woman is valid or recognized in California."
And the courts have ruled that Prop 22 violated the California
Constitution
But only in Queerville, boy. It wasn't the "Courts" as you lie and
would like for us to believe, it was a "San Francisco" Court and
dealt only with Queerville. You sorry piece of dog *****.
Actually, it was also the 3rd District Court of Appeal, and it was not
just "queerville," by which I'm guessing you mean San Fran (and try to
remember, you're thinking of the Castro district, not the entire city),
but the entire state since they struck down the entire proposition.
If you're going to try and be political, try to keep up at least.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Promoters of Calif. Homosexual 'Marriage' Bill Not Above the Law |
01 May 2005 07:45:22 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 01 May 2005 07:06:41 GMT, AntiSocial
<pessimistdepressionist@yahoo.com> wrote:
wbt@privacy.net wrote:
On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 03:50:48 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
On 28 Apr 2005 13:51:17 -0700, "RoB WAde" <rob_c_wade_1@yahoo.com>
drained his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly
proclaimed the following
Five years ago, 61.4 percent of Californians approved Proposition 22,
the Protection of Marriage Initiative. The 14 words of the initiative
were carefully crafted, reading: "Only marriage between a man and a
woman is valid or recognized in California."
And the courts have ruled that Prop 22 violated the California
Constitution
But only in Queerville, boy. It wasn't the "Courts" as you lie and
would like for us to believe, it was a "San Francisco" Court and
dealt only with Queerville. You sorry piece of dog *****.
Actually, it was also the 3rd District Court of Appeal, and it was not
just "queerville," by which I'm guessing you mean San Fran (and try to
remember, you're thinking of the Castro district, not the entire city),
but the entire state since they struck down the entire proposition.
Try to remember that even though the "Castro" district is being
gentrified" the city of San Francisco, as is Los Angeles, New York,
Miami and several other queer centers, of significant interest to the
CDC.
Now, to the good stuff -- I seem to have missed the repeal of Prop. 22
would you be kind enough to provide some info on how that was
accomplished by a state court...
I am, however, aware of this sate Supreme Court ruling regarding San
Francisco's short term marriage fiasco:
*********************************************
California Supreme Court rules San Francisco mayor out of bounds;
same-sex "marriage" licenses invalid
Thursday, August 12, 2004, 10:16 AM (MST)
ADF Media Relations | 480-444-0020
SAN FRANCISCO—Today the California Supreme Court handed a huge victory
to the millions of California voters who passed Proposition 22 and
oppose same-sex "marriage."
The court ruled 7-0 that the mayor and county clerk of San Francisco
exceeded their authority when they defied state law and issued
"marriage" licenses to same-sex couples. The court also ruled 5-2
that because San Francisco issued the licenses illegally, they are
invalid.
"The justices have restored the rule of law in California," said
Alliance Defense Fund Senior Counsel Jordan Lorence, who argued the
case Lewis v. Alfaro before the California Supreme Court on May 25.
"The decision shows that same-sex ‘marriage’ is not inevitable.
Same-sex ‘marriage’ loses whenever a state puts it before voters."
"The justices rightly saw the chaos that could ensue if a local
official was allowed to defy the law," Lorence added. "It’s common
sense that illegally issued documents cannot be valid. The licenses
were null and void from day one."
San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom directed County Clerk Nancy Alfaro to
grant the invalid licenses to same-sex couples in February. She
continued to do so until March 11, when the California Supreme Court
unanimously issued a stay ordering her to cease issuing them. ADF
filed the request for the stay and writ of mandate on February 25.
ADF is currently defending marriage from legal attacks in
Massachusetts, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Washington, Oregon, Ohio, and
Louisiana. Read news releases, legal documents, and additional
information related to the same-sex "marriage" battle in California at
www.alliancedefensefund.org/actions/Default.aspx?mid=422&cid=2725.
To read today’s opinion, please see
http://www.alliancealert.org/aa2004/2004_08_12.pdf.
If you're going to try and be political, try to keep up at least.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Roedy Green" |
|
| Title: Re: Promoters of Calif. Homosexual 'Marriage' Bill Not Above the Law |
28 Apr 2005 08:21:10 PM |
|
|
On 28 Apr 2005 13:51:17 -0700, "RoB WAde" <rob_c_wade_1@yahoo.com>
wrote or quoted :
No lawmaker is above the law or the people. Yet state
legislators who are pushing AB 19 show no respect for the constitution,
laws or people of California.
Can you tell us where in the constitution of the USA or California it
mentions referenda trumping the legislature?
For how long does it trump?
If it does, then the new law can be easily challenged.
What's the problem?
or is this another one of your fabrications?
I note you are still up to your cowardly tricks putting dummy followup
tos to derail responses to your Papal Bulls.
Bush crime family lost/embezzled $3 trillion from Pentagon.
Complicit Bush-friendly media keeps mum.
http://www.infowars.com/articles/us/mckinney_grills_rumsfeld.htm
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
See http://mindprod.com/iraq.html photos of Bush's war crimes
.
|
|
|
| User: "A. Krieghund" |
|
| Title: Re: Promoters of Calif. Homosexual 'Marriage' Bill Not Above the Law |
28 Apr 2005 11:09:11 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 01:37:29 GMT,
Roedy Green <look-on@mindprod.com.invalid> Canadian Mind Products
wrote:
Bush 43 set up an organised system to rape, murder, and sexually abuse
children. He and Rumsfeld make secret visits to their little S&M
dungeons in Iraq. Why else would the bother with sexual abuse if they
did not get DVDs made for them to jerk off too? Sexual abuse has no
possible strategic purpose, neither does harming children. Bush and
Rumsfeld are twisted sadists just like others who did the same thing
-- Hitler and Saddam.
Roedy Green. Canadian Mind Products
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dionisio" |
|
| Title: Re: Promoters of Calif. Homosexual 'Marriage' Bill Not Above theLaw |
28 Apr 2005 08:53:43 PM |
|
|
RoB WAde wrote:
AB 19, which would issue same-sex "marriage" licenses in every county
in California, passed the Assembly Judiciary Committee on April 26.
Aww... They shouldn't have. Such a sweet present to give a guy on his
birthday.
Hmm... Wait a minute. I'm in Ohio. Blasted politicians! It's all
strings, strings, strings.
Coauthored by 30 Democrats, AB 19 would repeal the people's vote on
marriage.
People don't get a vote on marriage.
Where does this leave us? The California State Constitution provides
that voter-approved initiatives cannot be overturned by mere
legislation. This standard applies the people's vote on marriage, thus
rendering AB 19 unlawful and unconstitutional.
Ah... So why the concern, Grasshopper?
As marriage for a man and a woman is completely natural, voter backlash
against out-of-touch politicians is both a natural and beneficial check
in our democracy.
Sheesh. First you were against "in touch" political folks (I.E.:
Clinton); Now you're against "out of touch" political folks... I've seen
flip-flops with less flip-floppiness.
--
The psychotic person knows that 2 and 2 makes 5 and is perfectly happy about it; the neurotic person knows that 2 and 2 makes 4, but is terribly worried about it.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
