California Supreme Set to Reject Gay Stance on Prop 8//

constitutiondaypic1

Thanks for keeping my blog warm everyone!!!! Moving is a total fiasco. Thankfully I’m not a pack-rat and I have no problem throwing things away. We’re finally in the new house, but unpacking is another story. The internet got hooked up today and I’m anxious to see what I’ve been missing on the marriage front this past week.

This was the first bit on info I came across. The liberal Washington Post is of course trying to put their slant on the the Prop 8 issue and the pending Supreme Court ruling, likely in favor of Prop 8, but if you look past the slant and bias, you’ll see that although they are trying to give gays hope that they can take over marriage and whatever else they feel like, we as citizens still ultimately have the power. We can continue to affect the outcomes of the ballot measures and express our wants and needs to our representatives. And we can still expect the CA Supreme Court to respect our wishes, and not trample on our rights.

Here are some highlights from the article:

It is ordinarily the better part of wisdom not to predict court decisions on the basis of questions asked by judges at oral argument. But the California Supreme Court left little doubt that it would reject the contention of gay rights advocates that it should ignore the results of the ballot initiative that, in effect, reversed the same court’s opinion recognizing same-sex marriages.

Yet, as difficult as the likely outcome of the case will be for those of us who support gay marriage, the court’s rationale will almost certainly strengthen a fundamental tenet of the progressive movement: the right of ordinary citizens to maintain authority over their state constitutions.

That means US… marriage supporters and defenders. Should gay marriage supporters ever get an initiative of  their own on the ballot, we can always vote again, and again, and have our voices heard in favor of real marriage, again!!! As long as we stand together and stay focused on what we want, and get out there and vote, they won’t be able to reverse this.

Early 20th-century progressives had a deep distrust of state judicial authority for the very good reason that many decisions were antithetical to a more just and humane society. The relative ease with which Californians — and residents of other states — can amend their state constitutions owes much to the “direct democracy” reforms led by progressives.

When Theodore Roosevelt, the Progressive candidate for president in 1912, proposed the recall of state court decisions to enable “the people themselves” to decide constitutional issues, he was responding to our democracy’s inherent tension between judicial authority and democratic legitimacy. And when Larry Kramer, the preeminent progressive scholar of “popular constitutionalism,” criticized William Rehnquist’s Supreme Court, he noted, “The Supreme Court is not the highest authority in the land on constitutional law. We are.

The author writes:

The idea that judicial authority is not ultimate constitutional authority can be particularly unsettling when citizens choose to amend their state constitutions to limit rather than expand rights.

That’s too bad. We, the majority, have just as much right to our vote as the gay minority. Everyone gets one vote!!!!! Just because they don’t like how we voted, does not make our votes any less valid, although they are trying to make it seem that way because they don’t like the outcome. Majority rules in our State Constitution.

The methods by which voters may amend state constitutions, although varying from state to state, are far more flexible than the process by which the U.S. Constitution may be amended. A decision of the U.S. Supreme Court may be “overturned” by constitutional amendment, but that event is rare. It has happened only four times in our nation’s history, and once, it required a civil war. In contrast, in the past decade, citizens in more than two dozen states have amended their constitutions through popular vote to reverse or forestall favorable consideration of gay marriage claims.

This is a nice sentiment, but I’m all for state’s rights! People should have control over their government, not the government having control over the people. I think that the legislators need to take some history refresher courses. The citizens of California are the ultimate constitutional authority, not the court and not the legislators.

Check back for more marriage info this weekend. Thanks for reading!!!


Journalista haitus//

The Journalista Chronicle is taking a few days off from posting… My hubby and I are packing and moving and tired…. I’ll be back with a new post and new info towards the end of the week.

In the mean time, check out Glen Beck’s new website the912project.com — talk with like minded people, share ideas and get involved in the things that affect our country and in turn your life.

Also, check out the King Fisher Column via the link in the side bar for the latest info from the amazing marriage and family bloggers.

Have a great week everyone! Check back here Thursday or Friday!

Glen Beck’s “We Surround Them” Unveiling is Today!!!// be sure to watch!

Just a reminder that Glen Beck’s show comes on at 2pm Pacific for all of my West Coast Readers/ 5pm Eastern on the Fox News Channel.

So set your DVR’s before you leave for work so you don’t miss it. If you want to go to one of the “We Surround Them” get-togethers and watch with other concerned Americans, you can find information and locations by state here.

Happy Friday!!!

Reagan and Obama: Contrasting Views of Government// who makes more sense?

That would be Regan. Too bad he isn’t still President.

I’m borrowing this post from a fellow conservative and pro-family blogger Rickety. I’ve had the link saved as a draft for a while now, but think this information is especially relevant, and gets more so every day that Obama thrusts more drama on our country. Read what Rickety has to say and then think really hard, back to high school Political Science and American history 101, you know, the classes where you once learned about the Constitution and what a free market economy really is….. It would be nice if we had a president who stood by the values this country was founded on.

Peruse these contrasting quotes from President Obama’s inaugural speech and President Reagan’s first inaugural address. Notice how with Obama the government is not the problem whereas with Reagan the blame is placed on government and the elites. Obama spells out three entitlements the government should give the people whereas Reagan advocates self-rule and confidence in the people. Obama and Reagan both mention important points: Obama wants the light of day on government and Reagan stresses that no one group should be singled out to pay a higher price.

President Barack Obama
President Barack Obama

…not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works.

The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works — whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end. And those of us who manage the public’s dollars will be held to account, to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day, because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government. –President Barack Obama


President Ronald Reagan

Courtesy Ronald Reagan Library

…government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.

In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. From time to time we’ve been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people. Well, if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else? All of us together, in and out of government, must bear the burden. The solutions we seek must be equitable, with no one group singled out to pay a higher price. –President Ronald Reagan

What do you all think? Comments welcome!!! Thanks for reading!

Thanks for the great info Rickety!

Source: http://www.rickety.us/2009/01/reagan-and-obama-contrasting-views-of-government/

We Surround Them FRIDAY!//

unite-or-dieOh…if only protecting and preserving marriage was our only issue…. unfortunately there is also mass chaos in our economy, we have legislators who are completely out-to-lunch and have their priorities mixed up, we have a president who wants us to be BFFs with communist Cuba….as if we didn’t already know that’s exactly how Obama wants to run this country, and if that’s not bad enough, we have a shopaholic government who is trying to rob us blind and who’s social programs make their lack of budget balancing ability one for the history books. Personally, I’m pretty sick of it, and apparently so is Glen Beck, and many other Americans.

Do you agree with the following principles and values?

The Nine Principles

1. America is good.

2. I believe in God and He is the Center of my Life.

3. I must always try to be a more honest person than I was yesterday.

12 Values

  • Honesty
  • Reverence
  • Hope
  • Thrift
  • Humility
  • Charity
  • Sincerity
  • Moderation
  • Hard Work
  • Courage
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Gratitude

4. The family is sacred. My spouse and I are the ultimate authority, not the government.

5. If you break the law you pay the penalty. Justice is blind and no one is above it.

6. I have a right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, but there is no guarantee of equal results.

7. I work hard for what I have and I will share it with who I want to. Government cannot force me to be charitable.

8. It is not un-American for me to disagree with authority or to share my personal opinion.

9. The government works for me. I do not answer to them, they answer to me.

You Are Not Alone

Source: This is courtesy of Glen Beck and can be found on his website here.

I love this list, and I love my cousin for pointing it out to me ( Check out the super-cute couple in the bottom right corner of the photos featured, aka, my cousin and his wife :)

Do you watch the direction that America is being taken in and feel powerless to stop it?
Do you believe that your voice isn’t loud enough to be heard above the noise anymore?
Do you read the headlines everyday and feel an empty pit in your stomach…as if you’re completely alone?

If so, then you’ve fallen for the Wizard of Oz lie. While the voices you hear in the distance may sound intimidating, as if they surround us from all sides—the reality is very different. Once you pull the curtain away you realize that there are only a few people pressing the buttons, and their voices are weak. The truth is that they don’t surround us at all.
We surround them.

Insightful Nana writes on her blog:

Several  weeks ago… I happened to be listening to the Glenn Beck show when a disgruntled caller complained that he was discouraged about the state of affairs of the country.  He expressed that the principles and values he believed…  seemed to be no longer valued.  Glenn assured him that many people still hold true to good principles and values and promised this man he would prove it to him.

Glen Beck points out in his article that it’s time to show America what’s really behind the curtain, Wizard of OZ style.  Help get  your voice heard.

First go here and submit your picture to Fox News if you agree with at least 7 of the principles, and then stay tuned to Glen Beck’s  radio and television shows over the coming weeks to see how they intend to “pull back the curtain.”

We Surround Them-The Unveiling can be seen this Friday night March 13th on FOX News 5pm ET

Gays Asking For Special Treatment, Not Equal Rights//

Haven't heard the GLBT's yet? Don't worry they're still screaming...

Haven't heard the GLBT's yet? Don't worry they're still screaming...

What happened to the land of the free and the home of the brave? This so-called greatest country in the world is turning itself into the land of the free-as-long-as-you-are-tolerant-of-the-things-we-choose and the home of the cry babies.

The biggest argument coming from this ever-growing group is that homosexuals do not receive the same rights as heterosexuals. But in reality, they do. A man who professes to be gay has the same right as a straight man: to marry a woman.

Homosexuals are fighting for so-called freedoms, but they already have actual freedoms, the very freedoms listed  in the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, the very same freedoms that every American has, gay or not.

In short, what is happening to America is the downfall of equality and the rise of privilege. Not privilege for everyone, but for those who consider themselves oppressed. The so-called minorities are searching for an exclusive place in society, and the government is handing it over.

So much for equality– because what homosexuals and their agenda filled backers are really fighting for are “special” rights; those different from and above and beyond what anyone else has. Why should we change all of the rules for them?

They lobby for the particular privilege to marry the same sex – an entitlement no person has. It isn’t equal rights these people want – it’s an exclusive allowance they’re searching for.

So this begs the question, do they deserve an exclusive allowance? Translation–do they deserve special treatment just because they don’t like being a minority, not a minority in a  legally “protected class” kind of way, because no one outside of the GLBT community and their supporters is worried about protecting this alleged minority, but minority as in they participate in  activities and live a lifestyle that most people believe  is immoral and unacceptable. GLBT drama isn’t going to win a popularity contest, and Californians have already made that very clear.

Sorry guys…in my opinion, being associated with said immoral sexual activities by your own choice and of your own doing  does not mean that you should get your own lane on the 405 fwy so-to-speak. You have to drive with everyone else who wants to use that freeway and follow the rules that have already been established as the best and safest for all involved.  If you cause a ruckus, or spin your car out of control, you’re going to get run over… like you did on Nov 4th! (Like that analogy? I just came up with it on the fly…lol…)

But gay marriage is just the introduction to the fight. The quest for the exceptional right to unnaturally marry has spawned an entirely new argument: discrimination.

{Click Here to Continue Reading…

Prop 8′s Day In Court// justices skeptically grilled lawyers seeking to overturn the state’s ban on gay marriage…

Shannon Minter, standing, speaks to the California Supreme Court in San Francisco, Thursday, March 5, 2009 on the constitutionality of the state's voter-approved Proposition 8 that bans gay unions. The court will decide whether to uphold the same-sex marriage ban and whether same-sex couple marriages will remain valid. (AP Photo/Paul Sakuma, pool)

Shannon Minter, standing, speaks to the California Supreme Court in San Francisco, Thursday, March 5, 2009 on the constitutionality of the state's voter-approved Proposition 8 that bans gay unions. The court will decide whether to uphold the same-sex marriage ban and whether same-sex couple marriages will remain valid. (AP Photo/Paul Sakuma, pool)

California Supreme Court Justices heard arguments today from both sides on the validity of Proposition 8.

Kenneth Starr was amazing today, representing the Yes on 8 campaign in front of the Supreme Court! The definition of marriage as only between 1 man and 1 woman may remain in tack! Supreme Court Justices may actually remember they don’t have authority to dictate voter’s rights. Here’s the scoop from today’s Prop 8 Supreme Court oral arguments. Things are looking good so far!!!

“What I am picking up from the oral arguments is that this court should willy-nilly disregard the will of the people,” said Kennard, who just 10 months ago voted that prohibiting same-sex marriages violated the civil rights of gays. “The people established the constitution; as judges, our power is very limited.”

According to the SF Associated Press, thousands of demonstrators showed up to chant and wave signs outside of the CA Supreme Court building today, as the Justices geared up to hear and question oral arguments from parties on both sides of the gay marriage ban issue.

Attorney’s for gay couples and supporters of SSM argued that gay civil rights are being violated and tried to,

persuade the California Supreme Court that the public’s right to change the constitution doesn’t extend to depriving an unpopular minority of the right to wed.

But the court’s seven justices indicated a wariness to override what Associate Justice Joyce Kennard called the people’s “very, very broad, well-wrought” authority to amend the state’s governing framework at the ballot box.

Couples who married during the short 4 1/2 month period in which the ban on SSM was lifted, were disheartened by the tone of the hearing and not very hopeful that the justices would strike down the ban that voters put in place with a 52% vote in favor of Proposition 8 last November.

Bad news for gay couples, but amazing news for those of us who voted Yes on Prop 8 and want to see the traditional definition of marriage preserved, as was the entire reason for the ballot initiative in the first place.

Gay rights advocates argued the proposition is such a sweeping change to the constitution’s equal protection clause that it was a constitutional revision, not just an amendment. A revision requires legislative approval before it lands on the ballot.

Chief Justice Ronald George, who also ruled last year to strike down a pair of laws that limited marriage to a man and a woman, echoed Kennard’s qualms about denying voters their voice.

The Supreme Court acknowledged today that the voters were well withing their rights to vote to amend their state constitution and place a ban on gay marriage. It has happened hundreds of times before, 500 times to be exact, compared with just 27 amendments to the United States Constitution. Chief Justice Ronald George noted that it is up to the Legislature and the voters to make the amendment process more difficult, not the job of the court.

“It seems what you are saying is, it is just too easy to amend the California Constitution,” George told Raymond Marshall, an attorney representing the NAACP and other civil rights groups trying to overturn the ban. “Maybe the solution has to be a political one.”

Too easy or not, the amendment, revision, or whatever, is already done, and if some think it’s too easy to amended our state constitution, then that is an issue to be addressed outside of the court and  should not be related to the Constitutionality of Prop 8.

Minutes into Thursday’s proceedings, the justices peppered a lawyer representing unwed same sex couples with tough questions over how the 14 words of Proposition 8 represent a denial of fundamental rights when same-sex couples still have the legal benefits of marriage through domestic partnerships.

“Is it your argument in this proceeding that the passage of Proposition 8 also took away in addition to the label of marriage, the core of substantive rights of marriage this court outlined in its decision last year?” asked Kennard.

Supporters of the gay marriage ban, represented by former Whitewater prosecutor Kenneth Starr, said it would be a reversal of the Supreme Court’s own precedents for the court to overturn the results of a fair election.

“Under our theory the people are sovereign and they can do very unwise things that tug at the equality principle,” Starr said.

He also argued that California voters have an “inalienable right” to amend the constitution and that taking away rights through the initiative process is not a revision that alters the structure of government.

The question about what will happen to the 18,000 same-sex marriages that were preformed before the passage of Prop 8 still stands. Many of the justices appeared skeptical that Prop 8 could be applied retroactively. However, from my standpoint, just because the marriages were legal when they were performed, if the court upholds Prop 8, and the Constitution of California defines marriage as only marriages between one man and one woman are valid and recognized in CA, then it looks like even if SS marriages may remain legal, they won’t be recognized by the state. That is what the amendment says.

The justices have 90 days to issue a ruling.

The crowd outside the court grew steadily throughout the hearing, with many watching the proceedings on a giant television screen erected across the street in front of City Hall. Demonstrators were evenly split over the gay marriage issue and took turns drowning out each others chants after the hearing.

Visit my friend Beetle Blogger for her personal account of the hearing today. She also posted the video of the hearing if you want to watch that. Check out her post, she’s got the inside scoop.

Pearl Diver also has a great write-up of today’s events!

Marriage Goes On Trial Tomorrow// some ca leaders just don’t get it…

wedding-ring

“The future belongs to those people and cultures that deeply commit to ideas grounded in human nature: Men and women are not interchangeable units, sex has a meaning beyond immediate pleasure, society needs babies, children need mothers and fathers; marriage is a word for the way we join men and women to make the future happen.” – Maggie Gallagher

Dear California Supporters of the Family,

Opponents of Prop 8 at it Again!!!!

Some California Leaders Just Don’t Get It

There are some big “guns” behind the opposition to Prop 8 – including 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. Your help is needed to show them that they do not represent the voice of the people.

Help us Protect our Democracy

Twice now we have voted to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman. This is more than a battle to define marriage: it is a battle to protect the governing voice of the American people.

It is a battle to preserve our civil and religious rights.

If same gender marriage is legalized, homosexual relationships will be deemed the equivalent of heterosexual relationships. Society (i.e. schools, textbooks, media, even religion) will be obligated to accommodate, validate, and promote homosexual behavior and relationships as normal and desirable. Faith based organizations will be forced to choose between their core beliefs and embracing same-sex marriage. Already, Catholic Social Services in Massachusetts has been forced to end its extensive adoption services because the state requires them to place children in same-sex households.

It is a battle to protect our parental rights.

Children in public schools will have to be taught that same-sex marriage is just as good as traditional marriage. Government will overrule the rights of parents to teach their children their own values and beliefs.

It is a battle to encourage the raising of the next generation of responsible citizens

Social science research overwhelming demonstrates that children do better raised by a mother and a father in a stable family relationship. No responsible society would intentionally create motherless and fatherless homes for children.

This battle is not about tolerance, or rights or diversity.

It is about protecting the institution that best protects our civilization. Protecting marriage is not about adult rights, it is about the nurturing and development of children and the next generation.

Governor Romney is quoted as saying that the preservation of our nation rests in the hands of our next generation:

“Americans are tolerant, generous, and kind people. We all oppose bigotry and disparagement, and we all wish to avoid hurtful disregard of the feelings of others. But the debate over same-sex marriage is not a debate over tolerance. It is a debate about the purpose of the institution of marriage. Attaching the word marriage to the association of same-sex individuals mistakenly presumes that marriage is principally a matter of adult benefits and adult rights. In fact, marriage is principally about the nurturing and development of children. And the successful development of children is critical to the preservation and success of our nation.”

Please join United Families California

To Stand for Marriage and Prop. 8 & The Voice of the People

Meet Us:
March 5, 2009 at 7:30am
Supreme Court of California
350 McAllister Street
San Francisco, CA 94102-4797

For additional information call 916.370.7038

Source: United Families California via email


Why You Should Still Worry About Prop 8 & Protecting Marriage// stay involved…

prop-8As voters and citizens, we have more responsibilities to participate in our society and our government, above and beyond simply voting…. You voted. That’s great!!!!! If you voted with out studying the issues….not so great, unless of course you voted Yes on 8. No studying needed there.

Participating in our society, legislative, and legal processes is a full time job people! You can’t just check in once every 4 years because it’s fun to get an “I Voted” sticker at the polling place! (Although I love those too!) With the chaos that is constantly going on in politics, our economy and our society,  with the evils that constantly fight to destroy our marriages, our families and our children, we need to be constantly informed, educated, and up to date. We need to act according to our values and participate whenever and where ever we can, to make sure that our legislators are subsequently acting according to our values themselves, when they allegedly represent us.

Defending Marriage and Proposition 8 is no different. The legal battle is looming (this Thursday) and here’s what you need to know and why you still need to stay informed. The brilliant blogger John Galt over at Good Sense Politics has graciously provided me and other marriage bloggers with the following information. Read up and pass it on!

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

Because 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?

{Click here to continue reading…}

Rally in Person, or Watch the Hearing on TV// Prop 8 goes to court on Thursday…

Well to everyone but homosexuals, the CA Supreme Court and the Legislature

Well to everyone but homosexuals, the CA Supreme Court and the Legislature

Prop 8 oral arguments begin this Thursday at the California Supreme Court in Downtown San Francisco.

If  you can attend, make some signs and get out there in support of real marriage!!!!! Help send a message to the court.

Time: March 5, 2009 from 9am to 12pm
Location: California Supreme Court – San Francisco, CA

Call your local newspapers and news stations! Let them know that the will of the people will be represented, whether at the courthouse or at individual residences across the state. We are still here. We are California. California has voted!

Coverage of the hearing will be broadcast on The California Channel and can also be viewed in a live stream online at…

http://www.calchannel.com/
Info courtesy of Pearl-Diver!