Attn: Capitol Resourse
Institute
660 J Street - Suite 250
Sacramento, CA
95814
Dear Karen England:
I wanted to drop you this note to commend
you and let you know I am please with the efforts
that you and your group (and groups like yours)
are doing to keep marriage safe. Although I do not
believe it is necessarily FAMILY VALUES that we
are trying to protect, I do avidly believe it is
CHRISTIAN VALUES that are being viciously
attacked.
But regardless, we are fortunate to have
you help lead this fight against those who wish to
change the Judeo/Christian concept of marriage
into unions of all sorts of perverse evils
(same sex-unions).
I have a couple of comments on
your last email alert. It concerns the
interpretation of the California Supreme Court
regarding our new Constitutional amendment. The
amendment reads:
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
- ARTICLE 1
DECLARATION OF
RIGHTS
SEC.
7.5.
Only marriage between a man and a woman is
valid or recognized in California.
My first comment pertains to your quote
about the courts ruling concerning the
"retroactivity provision:"
"The court ruled that Proposition 8 did
not contain a "retroactivity provision"
and therefore any marriages performed before it
took effect were valid. The ruling held that
voters did not intend to invalidate existing
same-sex marriages, and neither Proposition 8's
language nor any voter guide information would
lead voters to believe that existing same-sex
marriages would be invalidated should Proposition
8 pass. This is an attempt by the court to find a
legal loophole in order to placate those they
wronged last year by impatiently and imprudently
declaring same-sex marriage legal before voters
had their say on Proposition
8."
This is absurd that the Justices could
possibly use such trickery in saying the
California Constitution is NOT the law of the
land. The new amendment now trumps all California
Codes, Regulations and judicial decrees. This new
amendment strips away any concepts of marriages,
unions or whatever that have been done in the past
as well as what will be done in the future. Those
18,000 marriages are now 18,000 divorces! PERIOD!
These idiot judges cannot possibly say (with a
straight face) (or with a straight lifestyle) that
the constitution now allows NO same-sex
marriages EXCEPT for the
past 18,000 previous perverts who married each
other. If someone got a new-age-gay-marriage
then it is KAPOOT! OVER! Gone! The morons in the
California Supreme Court need to be
challenged!
The minute the new amendment was added
to our constitution...THE DIVORCE DECREE WAS MADE!
NO SAME-SEX MARRIAGES ARE ALLOWED -- ZERO, NADA,
NONE!
I would urge you to cease saying there is
any crediblity in the words of these rogue judges
and stand strong against these depraved rulings!
These judges are attempting to MAKE NEW LAW and
this cannot stand!
We need to form a Citizen's Grand Jury like
we have been doing with Soetoro
(aka Obama, aka illegal alien-in-chief) and
his eligibility issue. Soetoro has failed to
comply with the U.S. Constitution (and he refused
to prove his citizenship and that he is an
American), and indict these corrupt justices. The
California Supreme Court has failed to
read the new words of the CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
and they are in violation of it. This must stop!
I am calling for
25 Californians to join with me to indict these
judges for their rogue legislating from the
bench.
Now my second point. You quoted in your
email:
"The day after the ruling was handed
down, two lawyers announced they had filed a
federal challenge to Proposition 8. Former
Solicitor General (under President George W. Bush)
Ted Olson and David Boies, who were opponents in
the historic Bush v. Gore case of 2000, jointly
filed the lawsuit. The suit alleges Proposition 8
violates the United States Constitution's
Fourteenth Amendment guarantees of equal
protection and due process."
Has any lawyer or judge in any of the
pro-gay/lesbian litigation ever read the 14th
Amendment? The words are as follows:
14th
Amendment:
Section
1. All persons born or naturalized in the
United
States, and subject to the
jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the
United
States and of the
State wherein they reside. No State shall make or
enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges
or immunities of citizens of the United States;
nor shall any State deprive any person of life,
liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the
equal protection of the laws.
Could someone please tell me how the 14th
Amendment applies to the modern day gay/lesbian
issues? IT DOES NOT! There is no such protection
for gays and lesbians to CHANGE THE LAW. And this
is what they have been systematically doing. Our
laws have stood for nearly two centuries against
same sex-marriage. Now the gays and lesbians do
not want EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS but to
change the laws to favor their
lifestyle.
Starting in 1841 my Mormon forefathers were
persecuted for having religious
beliefs favoring plural marriage (Mormon men
had more than one wife.) (NOTE: We believed
it was a commandment from God.) The internet LEGAL
DICTIONARY describes the CURRENT CRIME of
plural marriage:
The Crime
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Polygamy
The law in every state prohibits a man or a
woman from being married to more than one living
person at a time. The crime of having more than
one current spouse is called either bigamy (having
two spouses) is a subset of the crime of polygamy
(having more than one spouse), and the law makes
no practical distinction between the two. Even in
states that separately criminalize both polygamy
and bigamy, either crime is committed when a
married person first enters into an unlawful
marriage with a second person. However, additional
marriages beyond the second would support
prosecution for additional criminal counts and
possibly a longer sentence.
Most states base their polygamy laws on the
Model Penal
Code section 230.1, which
provides that a person is guilty of the
third-degree felony of polygamy if he or she
marries or cohabits with more than one spouse at a
time in purported exercise of the right of plural
marriage. The crime is punishable either by a
fine, imprisonment, or both, according to the law
of the individual state and the circumstances of
the offense. The crime of polygamy is deemed to
continue until all Cohabitation
with and claim of marriage to more than one spouse
terminate. Polygamy laws do not apply to Aliens who
are temporarily visiting the United States,
provided that polygamy is lawful in their country
of origin.
The existence of a valid marriage entered
into by the defendant prior to the second valid
marriage is an essential element of the offense in
every jurisdiction. No particular type of ceremony
is required for the first or subsequent marriage
before someone can be prosecuted for polygamy.
Even persons who satisfy the requirement for a
Common-Law
Marriage can be prosecuted for
entering a subsequent marriage that itself is
either another common-law marriage or a
traditional marriage.
Cohabitation is not typically a requisite
element of the offense. Merely entering into a
second marriage with knowledge that one is
currently married to another living person will
support an indictment for polygamy. An indictment
for polygamy will not be found unlawful even if
the defendant offers proof that his or her first
marriage was a voidable marriage, or one that is
valid until annulled. If neither party to a
Voidable
marriage successfully voids the marriage by
obtaining an Annulment,
then the remarriage of either constitutes
polygamy.
Ordinarily the state in which the
polygamous marriage occurred has jurisdiction over
prosecution of the crime. Some statutes, however,
provide that the accused may be convicted in the
state where the polygamous cohabitation takes
place, even though the marriage occurred
elsewhere. For example, California law provides
that "when the second marriage took place out of
this state, proof of that fact, accompanied with
proof of cohabitation thereafter in this state, is
sufficient to sustain the charge." Cal. Pen. Code
§ 281.
How can the justices possibly conclude that
gays and lesbians can escape societies laws
regarding traditional marriage
whereas Mormons were to be jailed, fined
persecuted for having more than one spouse? It is
my opinion that either gays and lesbians suffer
the same penalties that Mormons have had to live
under, else the Supreme Courts (and American
society in general) have wronged the
LDS people (Mormons) in the past and they
owe restitution to all Mormons (LDS)
everywhere.
And too, at least the Mormons had plural
marriage for religious reasons. And the 1st
Amendment clearly states, "Congress shall make
no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
Whereas the Mormons heretofore complained that the
Supreme Court rulings were violating the
Constitution on this front, the gays and lesbians
can ask for no such religious
protection.
At anyrate, I commend you for your service
in the defense of marriage (2009). I maintain that
if the Mormons are slapped down for past plural
marriages, the same slapping down should apply to
gays and lesbians. If we LDS must live under
a one-man, one-woman rule... so should they! That
is EQUAL PROTECTION (i.e. Prosecution) OF THE
LAW!
(NOTE: Mormons (LDS) have not practiced
plural marriage since 1891.)
God Save Amerika,
Edward C. Noonan
Chairman - Yuba County American Independent
Party
National Committee Member: America's Independent
Party
Founder -
CA Mormon Battalion http://www.4xtreme.org
Former 2006-2008 State Party
Chairman - American
Independent Party
Former 2006 Candidate/Governor - State of
California
Former 2002 Candidate/Secretary of
State - State of
California
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, May 30, 2009 10:30
AM
Subject: The Proposition 8 Ruling:
What It Means
|
|
|
The Proposition 8
Ruling:
What It
Means |
|
What did the court
decide?
The court ruled against
opponents of Proposition 8 and upheld
traditional marriage. The key issue before the
court was whether Proposition 8 was an amendment
or a revision to the state constitution.
A revision is a fundamental
alteration of California's governmental
structure. A revision requires a 2/3 approval by
the legislature before heading to voters. The
court agreed with Proposition 8 supporters that
the ballot measure was a valid amendment, not a
revision. The simple 14-word insertion of the
traditional decision of marriage does not
fundamentally change the structure of
government.
This ruling was a
victory for the democratic process and the
people's ability to change our governing
documents. While Proposition 8 was upheld, it
was also subverted by the ruling. In recognizing
the 18,000 same-sex unions performed last year,
the court undercut the constitution, which
clearly states that only marriage between a man
and a woman is valid or recognized in
California.
What
about the same-sex marriages performed last
summer?
Last May the California
Supreme Court overturned Proposition 22,
declaring it unconstitutional. Since Proposition
22 was not placed in the constitution, but
simply in state law, the court contended that it
violated the state's ultimate law, the
constitution. Six months later, voters approved
Proposition 8, which placed the true definition
of marriage in the state constitution, thus
superseding the court's ruling. In that six
month window, an estimated 18,000 same-sex
unions were performed in the state.
The court placed itself in the
untenable position of upholding the people's
ability to defend traditional marriage and
extending marriage rights to same-sex couples.
In the end, the court reluctantly agreed
Proposition 8 was a valid constitutional
amendment, but it held to its social engineering
by validating the marriages performed last
summer.
The court ruled that
Proposition 8 did not contain a "retroactivity
provision" and therefore any marriages performed
before it took effect were valid. The ruling
held that voters did not intend to invalidate
existing same-sex marriages, and neither
Proposition 8's language nor any voter guide
information would lead voters to believe that
existing same-sex marriages would be invalidated
should Proposition 8 pass. This is an attempt by
the court to find a legal loophole in order to
placate those they wronged last year by
impatiently and imprudently declaring same-sex
marriage legal before voters had their say on
Proposition 8.
Will
same-sex marriages outside of California be
recognized?
In the last
footnote of the majority opinion, the court
indicates it is open to hearing a case on
whether same-sex marriages performed outside the
state during the six-month window last summer
may also be recognized in California. It is
doubtful that such marriages would be
recognized, especially not until such a legal
challenge is brought forward. However, the court
does seem to invite such a challenge, and based
on their illogical justification for recognizing
the 18,000 existing same-sex unions, justices
seem amenable to the idea of recognizing
out-of-state
unions.
Does this mean
the fight over marriage is
over?
Not at all. Even before
the ruling was handed by the court, homosexual
activists were organizing and planning their
next steps. Already, there is a movement to
place a repeal of Proposition 8 on the ballot in
2010. Rallies, protests and demonstrations are
scheduled all across the state as opponents of
Proposition 8 express their anger.
The day
after the ruling was handed down, two lawyers
announced they had filed a federal challenge to
Proposition 8. Former Solicitor General (under
President George W. Bush) Ted Olson and David
Boies, who were opponents in the historic Bush
v. Gore case of 2000, jointly filed the lawsuit.
The suit alleges Proposition 8 violates the
United States Constitution's Fourteenth
Amendment guarantees of equal protection and due
process. On behalf of an Alameda lesbian couple
and Los Angeles gay couple, the suit requests an
immediate injunction to stop the enforcement of
Proposition 8.
There
does seem to be some division amongst homosexual
groups, as several have denounced the lawsuit,
preferring instead to try the issue at the
ballot box again. Homosexual advocacy
organization Equality California is already
laying the groundwork for a statewide ballot
initiative to make same-sex marriage legal. If
it qualifies, such a measure could appear on the
2010 or 2012 ballot.
We must remain
vigilant because the battle for marriage has
just begun.
Read: The
Battle for Marriage Has Just
Begun
| |
|
|
|
| |
Please forward this
information your entire email
list
This
email has been posted at:
