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.

source: CBN.com

Supreme Court Blocks YouTube From California’s Prop 8 Trial

source: the liberal oc.com

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 Prop 8 trial set to begin Monday//

Proposition 8 goes to trial – Federal lawsuit begins on Monday

The lawsuit claims that the state ban violates the United States Constitution’s due process and equal protection clauses and creates a category of “second-class citizens” for gays and lesbians.

The LGBT legal teams is set to try and convince the Federal court that the voting rights of Californians should be ignored and that what they (we) have passed into law for our state shouldn’t matter.

What about a child’s equal protection under the law and their right to grow up in a traditional family? The original arguments of Prop 8 proponents are still valid.

. . .the federal lawsuit questioning the constitutionality of California’s voter-approved ban against same-sex marriage, set to begin Monday, January 11, could have sweeping impacts on whether gays and lesbians can legally marry in the Golden State..

I guess that’s a no for In Session, formerly known as CourtTV, when U.S. District Court Chief Judge Vaughn Walker rejected their offer to broadcast the trial. However he announced Wednesday that he will give the public access to the trial via tapped sessions that will be uploaded to youtube.com daily, via court staff, as he wants the process to be completely under the Court’s control.

The decision not to allow the media to broadcast the court proceedings live is somewhat of a setback for LGBT activists who had urged Walker to televise the proceedings. The judge issued his ruling after hearing arguments from both sides in the case Wednesday morning.

Alex Kozinski, chief judge of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, must sign off on the video plan. The court only recently decided to allow judges to have discretion over whether to televise proceedings in the courtrooms or not.

Walker’s decision is a partial win for the attorneys for the groups backing Prop 8, who warned the court that opening up the procedures to television cameras could result in their witnesses being harassed. The judge said he would turn off one of three cameras set to be used during testimony if witnesses ask not to be videotaped.

The lawsuit, known as Perry v. Schwarzenegger , has drawn wide media coverage since it was first filed in late May 2009, particularly for the odd legal pairing of lawyers Theodore Olson and David Boies. The two notably argued against each other in the Bush v. Gore U.S. Supreme Court case of 2000, which was won by Olson and handed the presidency to George W. Bush.

The attorneys agreed to argue the Prop 8 case on behalf of two couples – Berkeley residents Kris Perry and Sandy Stier, and Burbank residents Paul Katami and Jeff Zarrillo – who were denied the right to marry by the passage of Prop 8 and the California Supreme Court’s subsequent ruling upholding the constitutional amendment. The lawsuit claims that the state ban violates the United States Constitution’s due process and equal protection clauses and creates a category of “second-class citizens” for gays and lesbians.

The parties involved are expecting this case to be rather lengthy and complex. The No on Prop 8-ers and the couples who brought the suit are hoping that by the time this case gets to the Supreme Court (which apparently they are planning on happening) that the Court will be very different from what it is today, more liberal and apt to rule in their favor.  They are also hoping that the country will be more accepting and sympathetic to their plight.

{Click here to continue reading. . .}

Californian’s Will Have Their Say On Supreme Court Justices Who Constitutionally Stray//

Check out these interesting tidbits from the brilliant Beetle Blogger. It looks like we won’t be stuck with activists judges after all. As liberal as some people and elected officials in California are, at least we have a system where the citizens can participate a form of checks and balances. If someone gets out of line, we have the means to eject them from office, and prevent them from being even more destructive.

Automatic Recall of California Justices?

I learned an interesting thing this morning.  Judicial appointments in California are confirmed by the public at the next general election; justices also come before voters at the end of their 12-year terms.  Who is coming up for the end of their 12 year term this time around??

Three California Supreme Court justices will be up for reelection to 12-year terms on the November 2010 ballot:

1. Ron George – led court to invent homosexual “marriage” last year

2. Ming Chin — voted to uphold Prop. 22 last year

3. Carlos Moreno — voted to invent homosexual “marriages” last year

Carlos Moreno was the lone dissenting vote on upholding Proposition 8.  The amount of stretching and wheedling that had to be done in order to muscle his will into the state constitution automatically discredits him and disbars him in my mind.  There is no way he should ever sit as a judge over this state with that kind of willingness to overlook the basic rights of the people.

Ron George is hardly better.

There are some days when I am so glad to be a Californian.  When I look at these other states so helpless against their legislatures and judiciaries…It’s unfathomable the amount of work they have to put out to reorganize a corrupt system.  The California Constitution gives the people power.

That’s something to be grateful for.

—Beetle Blogger

Get ready to vote folks!!!

Another tidbit that you might find interesting…Carlos Moreno, the 1 dissenter who voted to strike down Prop 8, was also on Obama’s short list for potential appointees to the U.S. Supreme Court. The very same list from which he appointed Sotomayor. Not very shocking coming from Obama huh? Sotomayor is right up there  with all of the others who promote liberal ideologies, and hopes to assert her beliefs and opinions ahead of the rule of law when it comes to interpreting the Constitution.

For more info on Judicial Activism {click here}.

Source: Beetle Blogger

Ira Trombley, Vermont State Assembly Member, sends unprofessional and harassing email to supporters of traditional marriage//

Ira Trombley-- Vermont Representative
Ira Trombley– Vermont State Assembly

On April 7, 2009, the Vermont State Assembly voted to overrule the governor’s veto and successfully neutered marriage in that state, allowing the state to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples. Marriage advocates who had organized to fight on behalf of marriage were largely ignored. The governor was ignored. The majority of people in the state were ignored. Yet, the damage was done. The state redefined this fundamental social institution. —Self Evident Truths

One would think that if you write to a representative, and that if you get a response, it would be courteous and professional…right? Well, so not the case with this guy. Check out this response my friend Euripides got from Trombley, to an email he sent about the marriage issue:

You must have a computer virus. Your email, below, is identical to others.
Why would someone in far off, sunny AZ try to influence a domestic issue in tiny VT?
Doesn’t AZ have an economic crisis to solve?

I did not like what AZ did to the housing market, but I did not bombard AZ with thousands of emails.

>>> 03/25/09 7:11 PM >>>
March 25, 2009
The Honorable Ira Trombley
115 State Street
State House
Montpelier, VT 05633-5501

Pretty rude, snippy and unprofessional huh? This is what Vermont tax dollars are paying this guy to do.

Euripides reports over at his blog, “Self Evident Truths,” that,

Other marriage advocates received the same type of email – a form email – from Mr. Trombley.

Yes, the message is the same as others. The thousands upon thousands of individuals all expressed the same concern – that the Vermont Assembly not make the mistake of neutering marriage. Apparently the message was lost on Mr. Trombley.Does Mr. Trombley really not understand how political campaigning and political advocacy works? (I am skeptical.) Does he not understand that each of these generated emails comes from and individual? (Of course he does. Why else would he bother to write me back?)

{Click here to read the entire post}

Did you notice that Trombley calls himself the honorable? Interesting huh? I could be wrong but I thought that only judges got to call themselves that. We don’t even call the President of the United State “the honorable.”

Click {here to see Mr. Trombley’s bio}. In writing, he appears to be a quasi intelligent person and thus capable of considering the will of his constituents when he goes to vote, you know, the job those folks elected him to do, and subsequently pay him for. Yep, that’s right, the citizens  of Vermont are his boss! But he’d rather spend time drafting hideous form emails and mailing them out to all who wrote to him in support of traditional marriage.

Trombley’s Political Courage Test provided by Project Vote Smart, began with this little disclaimer:

Representative Ira Trombley repeatedly refused to provide any responses to citizens on the issues through the 2008 Political Courage Test when asked to do so by national leaders of the political parties, prominent members of the media, Project Vote Smart President Richard Kimball, and Project Vote Smart staff.

Not very cooperative and forthcoming of an elected official who should kindly remember that he works for the people, and should they choose not to re-elect him, that would be called unemployment.

Fox News Prop 8 “Legal Analyst” Bob Massi’s Commentary Way Off the Beam//

Massi_R

Photo: Bob Massi

So if you were watching Fox News on Tuesday, right after they announced the California Supreme Court decision, then you probably saw the insane commentary from legal analyst Bob Massi. Check out this analysis from my brilliant friend beetle blogger, sent in an email after the decision was announced. She’s right on as always.

I think we should all apply for analyst jobs at fox. I don’t have any news experience, but obviously it doesn’t matter, I apparently won’t need facts either…

Fox News Legal Analyst???  What kind of comment is this?  On live news, incorrect propaganda is being spouted:

“this movement, prop 8 was very much funded , millions of dollars, much by the Mormon Church as you know, they spent, they were organized, they went out .. what’s going to happen now? The bottom line is they lost….

There is a lot to be learned by this….  they got out charged, money wise.   They got out organized.  You and I have covered these kind of cases… its all about money.  If you have the amount of money to go out and try to raise the kind of support you want, and to pay the people and the volunteers to get out there, those are the ones that usually win.”

—Bob Massi, Fox News Legal Analyst
Would you like a point by point rebuttal of this awful legal analyzing?  I’m just a regular joe and I know more than your legal analyst does!
The Mormon Church gave no money.  Only in-kind donations amounting to an insignificant fraction of the donations received in the Proposition 8 fight.  As a prop 8 supporter I can tell you that I was not paid, and neither were any of the thousands of volunteers who worked tirelessly for marriage. We worked for Proposition 8 because it was right, not for money.
Proposition 8 supporters were out fund-raised and outspent by far, not the other way around.
Fire the “Legal Analyst”.
Massi goes on to say that gays a “class” of people, now divided…
We really have now… two classes of people within the same class… There is a sense of reverence. They want to be able to introduce their partner as their spouse. They want to say “this is my husband,” “this is my wife,” not “this is my partner.” And as a result, the reverence and the depth of that that you and I take for granted, they want that back. This will back very soon I’m sure in the next four years.
If you want to let Fox know how you feel about Massi’s rah-rah,gay marriage rally, write to Fox News here: feedback@foxnews.com

Digg, delicious, facebook, twitter…it’s all there!

Check out Bob’s video:

LDS Church Issues Response to California Supreme Court Decision on Proposition 8//

photo source: beckhamlawoffice.com

photo source: beckhamlawoffice.com

SALT LAKE CITY 26 May 2009 Today’s decision by the California Supreme Court is welcome. The issue the court decided was whether California citizens validly exercised their right to amend their own constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman. The court has overwhelmingly affirmed their action.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints recognizes the deeply held feelings on both sides, but strongly affirms its belief that marriage should be between a man and a woman.  The bedrock institution of marriage between a man and a woman has profound implications for our society. These implications range from what our children are taught in schools to individual and collective freedom of religious expression and practice.

Accordingly, the Church stands firmly for what it believes is right for the health and well-being of society as a whole. In doing so, it once again affirms that all of us are children of God, and all deserve to be treated with respect. The Church believes that serious discussion of these issues is not helped when extreme elements on both sides of the debate demonize the other.

I am proud and very grateful to be a member of this Church, where our leaders remind and encourage us to all love and respect each other, and treat each other with kindness, despite our differing opinions.

Source: newsroom.lds.org


California Supreme Court upholds Proposition 8//

marriage

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!!!!


Henry Ford’s Thoughts on Reformers and Reactionaries// oh what would he think of the marriage “reformers”?

Henry Ford   photo source: businessweek.com

Henry Ford-- photo source: businessweek.com

My brother sent this to me. We talk quite a bit in my family about all of the great industrious men who helped shape this country, their contributions, their work ethics, their thoughts on business, how they became successful despite the depression and hard times etc., and their values.

Here’s a snipped from Henry Ford’s book, My Life and Work.” He talks about reformers, and interestingly, some of it totally applies to the reformers trying to reform marriage … known to us as the sometimes violent activists of the GLBT movement. You know those people, the ones who are working to corrupt this country and turn it into a moral-less and value-less society. I don’t like what the “gays” are trying to do to marriage, families and society in general, and I don’t think Henry Ford would have liked it very much either….Yesterday my husband and I were eating dinner out and we saw a very obviously lesbian couple at a nearby table, in the stroller was the cutest baby…My heart just broke for that child who won’t have a father in his life and how these women are depriving him of his right to a family with a loving mother and a father. Those two lesbian women will NEVER be able to give that child everything it needs and deserves.

Wake up America, these kids have rights that complete supersede any gay or lesbian parenting fantasy…

Have a read, it’s really interesting… I’ve highlighted a few of his points that I think can relate to our so-called marriage reformers. Questions and comments welcome below.

MY LIFE AND WORK
by  Henry Ford

INTRODUCTION (CONT’D)

I am not a reformer. I think there is entirely too much attempt at
reforming in the world and that we pay too much attention to
reformers.
We have two kinds of reformers. Both are nuisances. The man
who calls himself a reformer wants to smash things. He is the sort of
man who would tear up a whole shirt because the collar button did not
fit the buttonhole. It would never occur to him to enlarge the
buttonhole. This sort of reformer never under any circumstances knows
what he is doing. Experience and reform do not go together. A reformer
cannot keep his zeal at white heat in the presence of a fact. He must
discard all facts.

Since 1914 a great many persons have received brand-new intellectual
outfits. Many are beginning to think for the first time. They opened
their eyes and realized that they were in the world. Then, with a
thrill of independence, they realized that they could look at the
world critically. They did so and found it faulty. The intoxication of
assuming the masterful position of a critic of the social
system–which it is every man’s right to assume–is unbalancing at
first. The very young critic is very much unbalanced. He is strongly
in favor of wiping out the old order and starting a new one.
They
actually managed to start a new world in Russia. It is there that the
work of the world makers can best be studied. We learn from Russia
that it is the minority and not the majority who determine destructive
action.
We learn also that while men may decree social laws in
conflict with natural laws, Nature vetoes those laws more ruthlessly
than did the Czars.

Nature has vetoed the whole Soviet Republic. For it sought to deny
nature. It denied above all else the right to the fruits of labour.
Some people say, “Russia will have to go to work,” but that does not
describe the case. The fact is that poor Russia is at work, but her
work counts for nothing. It is not free work. In the United States a
workman works eight hours a day; in Russia, he works twelve to
fourteen. In the United States, if a workman wishes to lay off a day
or a week, and is able to afford it, there is nothing to prevent him.
In Russia, under Sovietism, the workman goes to work whether he wants
to or not. The freedom of the citizen has disappeared in the
discipline of a prison-like monotony in which all are treated alike.
That is slavery.
Freedom is the right to work a decent length of time
and to get a decent living for doing so; to be able to arrange the
little personal details of one’s own life.
It is the aggregate of these and many other items of freedom which
makes up the great idealistic Freedom. The minor forms of Freedom
lubricate the everyday life of all of us.

Russia could not get along without intelligence and experience. As
soon as she began to run her factories by committees, they went to
rack and ruin; there was more debate than production. As soon as they
threw out the skilled man, thousands of tons of precious materials
were spoiled. The fanatics talked the people into starvation. The
Soviets are now offering the engineers, the administrators, the
foremen and superintendents, whom at first they drove out, large sums
of money if only they will come back. Bolshevism is now crying for the
brains and experience which it yesterday treated so ruthlessly. All
that “reform” did to Russia was to block production.

There is in this country a sinister element that desires to creep in
between the men who work with their hands and the men who think and
plan for the men who work with their hands. The same influence that
drove the brains, experience, and ability out of Russia is busily
engaged in raising prejudice here. We must not suffer the stranger,
the destroyer, the hater of happy humanity, to divide our people.
In
unity is American strength–and freedom. On the other hand, we have a
different kind of reformer who never calls himself one. He is
singularly like the radical reformer. The radical has had no
experience and does not want it.
The other class of reformer has had
plenty of experience but it does him no good. I refer to the
reactionary–who will be surprised to find himself put in exactly the
same class as the Bolshevist. He wants to go back to some previous
condition, not because it was the best condition, but because he
thinks he knows about that condition.

The one crowd wants to smash up the whole world in order to make a
better one. The other holds the world as so good that it might well be
let stand as it is–and decay. The second notion arises as does the
first–out of not using the eyes to see with. It is perfectly possible
to smash this world, but it is not possible to build a new one. It is
possible to prevent the world from going forward, but it is not
possible then to prevent it from going back–from decaying. It is
foolish to expect that, if everything be overturned, everyone will
thereby get three meals a day. Or, should everything be petrified,
that thereby six per cent, interest may be paid. The trouble is that
reformers and reactionaries alike get away from the realities–from
the primary functions.