Prop 8 Attorneys Make Case for Democratic Rights//

Proposition 8 Trial Continues . . .  U.S. Supreme Court set to make final ruling Wednesday on trial broadcast

The trial continues and Attorneys for Proposition 8– the measure that upheld traditional marriage in California– are focusing on democratic rights. I agree with that angle. I’m not an attorney, yet, but from my point of view, as a voter, that’s where the problem is. Legal counsel for the opposition to Prop 8 are trying to invalidate our votes and our rights as Californians to change our State Constitution.

“Clearly the big issue on this case is going to be the role of the courts and the rights of the people ultimately to make decisions in the democratic process and to be able to have their votes counted,” explained attorney Andre Pugno.

Prop 8 attorneys say they’re concerned about hatred against traditional marriage supporters.During the campaign against gay marriage, church vandalism was witnessed and some Prop 8 supporters received death threats, including Pastor Jim Franklin in Fresno, Calif.

“I’ve had threats before and you don’t know how seriously to take them,” Franklin recalled. “The chief of police called me back in about two minutes and said ‘Yes, we’re taking it very seriously because of the nature of it.'”

That kind of intimidation is why Prop 8 supporters oppose broadcasting the trial and posting it on YouTube. They fear for the safety of witnesses.

Opponents, however, say Americans should be able to view the debate for themselves.

The U.S. Supreme Court will make a final decision on the issue Wednesday.

Meanwhile, the California trial against Prop 8 is expected to last two to three weeks. No matter the outcome, the case is expected to be appealed to the high court.



Supreme Court Blocks YouTube From California’s Prop 8 Trial

source: the liberal

A small victory today for the Pro Prop 8 side.

The Supreme Court has blocked youtube streaming of the trial,

at least for now.

The U. S. Supreme Court has put a halt, at least temporarily, on plans to let Google’s (GOOG) video site stream coverage of the “Proposition 8″ trial, which kicked off today in a San Francisco courtroom.

U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker was going to allow the trial to be covered, on a tape-delayed basis, on the world’s biggest video site.

The Supreme Court has granted a temporary order overturning Walker’s ruling to allow tape-delayed youtube videos to be uploaded to the site by Court staff.

The court didn’t explain its reasoning, according to the Los Angeles Times, but perhaps we’ll hear more down the road–the ruling is only supposed to remain in effect until Wednesday.

Prop. 8 trial Day 1: Live coverage from the courtroom

If you want up-to-date trial info, the San Jose Mercury News is covering the trial from the Court room, and you can read their updates here.

Sources: TorrentBomb News All Things Digital

Share this blog or post with your friends.  Click the button below:

Federal Lawsuit Filed Against Prop 8//


Bush vs. Gore attorneys join forces against Prop 8.

Lawyers David Boies and Theodore B. Olson were on the opposite sides of a case that determined a presidency. Now they’ve joined forces to fight against traditional marriage in federal court and are representing two same-sex couples.

Boies, who represented Al Gore in the 2000 Florida vote-recount case, has teamed up with Olson, who represented the ultimately victorious George W. Bush.

In addition to his efforts for Gore, Boies is best known for representing the U.S. government in the late 1990s in its anti-trust case against Microsoft.Olson was the U.S. solicitor general under President George W. Bush, serving from June 2001 to July 2004.

They’ve filed a lawsuit in federal court challenging Proposition 8, California’s ban on gay marriage.

In addition to asking that Proposition 8 be declared unconstitutional, the lawyers are also seeking an injunction against the enforcement of the ban.

“Mr. Olson and I are from different ends of the political spectrum, but we are fighting this case together because Proposition 8 clearly and fundamentally violates the freedoms guaranteed to all of us by the Constitution,” Boies said in announcing thesuit.

The lawyers argue, among other things, that Proposition 8 denies the couple the right to marry and violates the equal-protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

The amendment’s Equal Protection Clause requires states to provide equal protection under the law to all people within their jurisdictions.

Chairm, one of The Opine Editorials’ brilliant bloggers, summed up David and Ted’s arguments from the news conference in which they announced their partnership in the fight for SSM in federal court.

These two lawyers who hope to take their case to the US Supreme Court
appeared on Hardball the other day. They want to use the CA marriage
amendment as the excuse to impose SSM across the country.

Below is a rough transcript. Note that their arguments have not
evolved one iota
since the pro-SSM side went to court in Hawaii back
in 1993. Here are some quick points they voiced.

1. It is said that the man-woman basis of marriage law discriminates
“purely” on sexual orientation. A new term is coined: “same-sex

2. It is said that marriage is the right of an individual to marry the
person of choice.

3. Marrige is called a fundamental human right — not merely a
constitutional right — and that race and sexual orientation are
closely analogous.

4. The claim is that the marriage amendment is just about the word;
but the complaint they make goes much farther than that.

5. The complaint refers to an individual’s equality, but here the
lawyers talk of equating different types of relationships.

6. A new attempt at analogy is made: citizens who pass the citizenship
test being denied the use of the word citizen.

7. The complaint is  the man-woman basis of marriage exists because
“same-sex indivduals” are unpopular and because the majority doesn’t
like what “same-sex indivduals” do in their relationships. They did
not once refer to sexual behavior.

8. They point to the example of Brown v. Board of Education — (an
activist decision that was poorly reasoned even if it came to a just
conclusion) and linked it to the Civil Rights Act which they said
would never have happened if not for the Supreme Court’s leadership.

Watch the 5 minute video and try not to yell at your monitor. They
can’t hear you. They can’t hear common sense either.


You can see these attorneys on MSNBC’s Hardball at the link {here}


California Supreme Court upholds Proposition 8//


The voters, and now the California Supreme Court, have spoken.

Marriage = 1 Man + 1 Woman. That’s it!!!!!

Today, the California Supreme Court announced their decision to uphold Proposition 8, and the will of the voters, in a 6 to 1 decision!!! Only 1 dissenting vote. Marriage in California is now legally defined in our Constitution as only between 1 man and 1 woman. I totally agree with my blogger friend Pearl, when she said:

I am immensely relieved that this state’s judiciary was inspired to reaffirm the right of the people of California to amend our own Constitution as we see fit.

Society, families and children will benefit from this  preservation of marriage! As for the 18,000 same-sex couples who got married last year during a small window when it was legal, the court has ruled that they will remain valid. I find it interesting though, that these folks think they are married, in a state where our constitution clearly says their marriages aren’t “valid or recognized.” Married or not, homosexual couples retain the same rights under California’s domestic partnership laws,  so hopefully they will learn to be happy with that. They aren’t being deprived of any civil rights like they try to convince everyone they are. I’m just happy that the court didn’t let them hijack real marriage.

The Supreme Court’s website is most likely overloaded, so I haven’t been able to read the justices’ opinions yet. I’ll post more info later! Prop 8 made history today for a 2nd time. I hope that now all of the other states will follow suit…it seems like a lot of them have been willy-nilly passing pro SSM laws lately, but since we know that the nation watches, and often follows, California, hopefully today’s decision will have a positive influence when it comes to preserving marriage in other states.

{p.s.} Pearl, I stole tags from your post! They was awesome! Thanks!!!!

Miss CA Being Compared to a Nazi War Criminal// and other Prop 8 news of the day


Here are a few interesting tidbits from today’s Proposition 8 and Marriage news.

:::::Additional Lawsuit Filed Against Prop 8

A new lawsuit has been filed claiming that Prop 8 violates the Federal Constitution. Hang in there states-rights. This is not the federal scandal that the plaintiffs are making it out to be.  {Click here to read article}

:::::Alliance Defense Fund Attorneys to Defend Prop 8 and the DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act)

The Christian Post reports:

A federal court has granted attorneys with a Christian legal firm a motion to intervene in a lawsuit that challenges Proposition 8 and the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Southern Division, filed the order granting the motion on Wednesday. Alliance Defense Fund attorneys will intervene on behalf of, the main proponents of Proposition 8 – California’s constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

“The people of California want marriage to remain as the union between one man and one woman; they made their voice clear last November at the polls,” said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Brian Raum in a statement released Friday. “Yet this lawsuit begs the court to nullify the voices of more than 7 million California voters, as well as put an end to the federal law on marriage.”

{Click here to read entire article}

:::::Media Blunders in Covering California’s Prop 8

Six months ago, California voters passed Proposition 8, denying legal recognition to same gender marriages.  Petitions are now being circulated to put the issue back to the voters in June 2010.

Before venturing into this thorny thicket again, the media should realize what a poor job it did in covering the fundraising for Prop 8.

The reporting blunders include gross inaccuracies and one where the media did not recognize a good story right before their eyes.

All the blunders could have been avoided had news organizations more fully understood the campaign finance reporting laws of California and/or been more diligent in examining the online campaign finance records filed with the California Secretary of State.

{Click here to read the entire article} I love it that someone is pointing out what a crappy job the media did.

:::::Character Assassins Gunning for Miss California, Supporters Say

“They’re really going after her,” Focus on the Family President Jim Daley said of Prejean, whose critics have gone so far as to compare her to a Nazi war criminal.

“She’s being attacked for her opinion; she’s getting creamed for just giving her perspective. It’s just another example of the intolerant left….

{Click here to read more}

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


“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

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…
Info courtesy of Pearl-Diver!

Should Gays Be A Protected Class?// not a chance, read on to find out why…

Do handicapped or elderly workers just volunteer to joing those protected classes? Nope, but gays join their club voluntarliy and then want the government to protect them...

Do handicapped or elderly workers just volunteer to join those protected classes? Nope, but gays join their club voluntarliy and then want the government to protect them... There's a difference

I came across this amazing post by my blogger friend at Comments on the Contemporary. He talks about the facts surrounding a class of people becoming a “protected class,” which can then sue for a violation of their civil rights. He talks about the classes of people that are legitimately a protected class, and how gays are trying to wiggle their way into protected status. Read the post here.

It is apparent that the argument in California over Proposition 8 has jumped over this fundamental issue and made an invalid assumption that a protected class exists without ever defining that class. Class definition is not difficult in the instance of race, or sex (i.e. women vs. men) but has been and will continue to be problematical for national origin and religion. Are we ready to include a class that does not have a definition? Won’t that open the door to almost any possible group or preference labeling themselves and claiming protected class status?

Constant repetition of the mantra of “gay rights” does not automatically create a protected class, unless there is some rational way of defining the class other than by someone claiming membership. To do otherwise, destroys the whole concept of civil rights in America today.

Protected classes seem to have historically been made up of individuals with characteristics that they have no control over. It seems like homosexuality has been drummed up by gays as they are trying to convince America that they should be a protected class because of their immoral choices to have-sex with, cohabitate with and fake-marry people of their same sex.

How does one go about proving they are a member of a class that has no accurate definition and no criteria for membership?

Again, referring to Euripedes, “The slippery slope exists when other people group themselves together and begin to claim protected class status for the most frivolous of claims. ” For example, if a person is the subject to same-sex attraction, but never acts out any of their feelings, is that person entitled to class protection as a “Gay?” What about the commonly argued situation where two people of the same sex live together but are not sexually involved at all. Are they also a member of this protected class of “Gays?”

Calling all college roommates in same-sex-only dorms, or people who don’t believe in living with the opposite sex before marriage. Check this out….they too could potentially also become a protected class, and therefore categorized by government and all of Americans as gay! Ok, folks…see now how ridiculous this gay protected class thing is… Thanks for the info ‘Comments on the Contemporary!

How the Homosexual Agenda Threatens Our Freedoms//

I think we all know who the zombie is.... the GLBT agenda advocates and the government who lets them have their way...

I think we all know who the zombie is.... GLBT agenda advocates and the government who lets them have their way...

The fallout of allowing the country to be taken over by the homosexual agenda is eerie. What follows  in this post is serious, very scary and exactly what the homosexual agenda is trying to do. . . Be Informed!!!! Protect your Freedoms, your Families and your Beliefs.

The gay, liberal and democratic left has tried really hard to convince us that gays are a minority group deserving of special protections. They have also tried really hard to convince us that giving gays said special protections would have zero affect on the rest of us who don’t agree with this giving of special protections, including letting them marry. If you think this agenda doesn’t have an effect on our freedoms, keep reading. It might surprise you how much it is already happening, here and abroad.

Well, as usual, they have twisted the truth, and even outright lied. Check out this list of some results that would follow from granting homosexual marriage or its legal equivalent and making “sexual orientation” a specially protected civil rights category for “hate speech” and “non-discrimination” laws. The GLBT gang is certainly whining enough about getting themselves in a “special” protected category, but do they deserve it….nah……

(1) Go to jail for “hate speech.” If a “Human Rights Commission” finds that you have made public statements that “incites hatred” against homosexual persons, you may go to prison. Ultimately, even ministers of the gospel will not be exempt. [I assume they are referring to global orthodox angelicism since that is where I found the article, but I think that would also apply to those teaching at other churches as well].

How is it that the government could potentially think that  they can dictate what can be taught in Church.?That isn’t exactly the separation of Church and State.

Just three weeks ago in Philadelphia eleven people belonging to a Christian evangelistic group called “Repent America” were arrested for singing hymns and carrying signs (“Homosexuality Is Sin; Christ Can Set You Free”) at a homosexual celebration called “Outfest.” They were charged with “ethnic intimidation” under Pennsylvania’s “hate crime” law (“sexual orientation” and “gender identity” were added to the law this past summer). This, along with a charge of “criminal conspiracy,” and other trumped-up charges, could result in a prison sentence of up to 47 years.

(2) Lose your job for not supporting “coming out” celebrations at work or for “discriminatory” speech outside of the workplace. That’s right, you can even be fired from your job for statements made outside your place of employment. Chris Kempling, a public school teacher and guidance counselor in British Columbia, Canada, was suspended for one month, without pay, for writing allegedly “discriminatory and derogatory statements against homosexuals” to a local newspaper. What kind of terrible statements did Kempling write? Things such as: “Gay people are seriously at risk [of sexually transmitted disease], not because of heterosexual attitudes but because of their sexual behavior”; and “Homosexual relationships are unstable, ‘gay’ sex poses health risks and many religions consider homosexuality immoral.”

I’m pretty sure people don’t need any other reasons to be afraid of loosing their jobs. What happened to free speech?? So they (liberal, left, socialist folks, are, as usual, trying to limit our freedoms and prohibit us from expressing a personal opinion and discussing our beliefs and aversion to homosexuality when we aren’t at work, with out fear of retribution of getting fired, sued or incurring jail time. Are they serious?

{Click here to continue reading the list…}

CA Supreme Court Set to Hear Prop 8 Arguments on Thursday// here’s the cliff notes version…


WHAT: The California Supreme Court will hold three hours of oral arguments from Thursday on three lawsuits seeking to overturn Proposition 8, the ballot measure that amended the state constitution to reinstate the ban on same-sex marriage the court threw out last year.

WHO: Lawyers representing same-sex couples and a group of local governments led by the city of San Francisco will get 90 minutes to present their arguments. The lawyers are Shannon Minter, legal director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights; Chief Deputy City Attorney Therese Stewart and Michael Maroko, a partner of Los Angeles lawyer Gloria Allred.

The sponsors of Proposition 8 will have an hour. They are being represented by Pepperdine law school dean Kenneth Starr, the former independent counsel who investigated President Bill Clinton during the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

California Attorney General Jerry Brown has taken the unusual step of declining to defend the initiative. Deputy Attorney General Christopher Krueger will have half an hour to explain the state’s position.

WHO ELSE: A record number of 62 friend-of-the-court briefs have been filed in the case, more than two-thirds of them in support of striking down the same-sex marriage ban. They are available for viewing at