Posted by: Admin on Wednesday, August 06, 2008 – 10:45 AM PST
Randy Thomasson, president
Campaign for Children and Families
Aug. 6, 2008
Two California marriage battles in court this week
This Thursday, Proposition 8, the California Marriage Amendment will be in a Sacramento courtroom. There are at least three issues at stake.
1. Prop. 8 proponents will ask the judge to change Attorney General Jerry Brown’s biased ballot title, “Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry,” back to “Limit on Marriage,” which was the petition title when signatures were gathered from California voters.
2. Homosexual activists will ask the judge to strike ballot language where Prop. 8 proponents claim schoolchildren will be required to respect homosexual “marriages.” I know of two Education Codes that back up the truth of this ballot statement.
3. Finally, Jerry Brown wants the judge to rule that Prop. 8 will not make the existing homosexual “marriages” null and void. If Prop. 8 passes on November 4, this question will quickly go to the California Supreme Court. Voter intent will determined by the ballot arguments. The public can read the paragraph that Prop. 8 proponents have written. If you were a judge, would you rule that these two sentences render the existing “right” of marriage for homosexual couples null and void?
Your YES vote on Proposition 8 will mean that only marriage between a man and a woman will be valid or recognized in California, regardless of when or where performed. But Prop. 8 will NOT take away any other rights or benefits of gay couples.
Our other case: On Friday, CCF’s strategic efforts to block homosexual “marriages” returns to Sacramento Superior Court. We’re helping to fund the efforts of the United States Justice Foundation and five county supervisors. The lawsuit alleges that Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger violated several clear-cut regulations when he changed the state’s marriage license form from “groom” and “bride” to “Party A” and “Party B.”
We’ve got strong case, because it’s not about whether the California Supreme Court violated the state constitution or the statutes. No, this is all about whether a state agency must follow the regulatory process, which, at the very least, require a 45-day public review period before something such as marriage licenses forms can be altered. If the judge is reasonable, we’ll win this one.
Please pray for God’s help in the legal action scheduled for Thursday and Friday. Whatever the outcome of these cases, your mission and mine remain the same: turn out as many people as possible to vote YES on Proposition 8 to reserve marriage licenses for a man and a woman in the California Constitution. Voter turnout strongly passed the first marriage measure on California’s ballot (Proposition 22 in 2000). Voter turnout can do the same for Proposition 8 — override the California Supreme Court’s awful decision.
LAKEWOOD, Colo. (AP) — Rick Santorum’s campaign slogan could very well be one word: doomsday. To hear him tell it, the United [...]
