Posted on 05/02/2005 7:37:39 PM PDT by Aetius
California's same-sex 'marriage' bill
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posted: May 2, 2005 1:00 a.m. Eastern
By Lynn Wardle & Randy Thomasson
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- © 2005 WorldNetDaily.com
No lawmaker is above the law or the people. Yet state legislators who are pushing AB 19 show no respect for the constitution, laws or people of California.
AB 19, which would issue same-sex "marriage" licenses in every county in California, passed the Assembly Judiciary Committee on April 26.
Coauthored by 30 Democrats, AB 19 would repeal the people's vote on marriage. Displaying these legislators' sense of superiority over the voters, AB 19 is as good or bad an example of arrogance you can find. The Democrats who have coauthored this same-sex "marriage" bill apparently think they're above the law and above the voters.
Five years ago, 61.4 percent of Californians approved Proposition 22, the "Protection of Marriage" initiative. The 14 words of the initiative were carefully crafted, reading: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."
The main author of AB 19, Democrat Assemblyman Mark Leno of San Francisco, claims that Prop. 22 forbids recognition of same-sex marriages from other states while allowing the creation of same-sex marriage here.
Mr. Leno is wrong. The drafters of Prop. 22 anticipated his ploy and wrote Prop. 22 to specify only man-woman marriages are "valid" in California.
The legal terms "valid" and "recognized" mean important things. To "recognize" is to acknowledge, confirm and give legal effect. It has both domestic and interjurisdictional application. In a conflict of laws, to "recognize" means one jurisdiction acknowledges and gives legal effect to rights created in another jurisdiction.
Even stronger is "valid." According the Black's Law Dictionary, "valid" means to have "legal strength or force," "good or sufficient in point of law; efficacious" and "sustainable and effective in law."
By using the phrase "valid or recognized," Proposition 22 makes it absolutely clear that same-sex marriage will not be legal in California – whether imported from other states or created here. The California Court of Appeals in Knight v. Superior Court held exactly that in a unanimous ruling in early April.
Where does this leave us? The California State Constitution provides that voter-approved initiatives cannot be overturned by mere legislation. This standard applies the people's vote on marriage, thus rendering AB 19 unlawful and unconstitutional.
The state Legislature simply cannot create "same-sex marriage." The politicians cannot repeal the people's vote.
If the Democrats who introduced AB 19 wish to delete the phrase "a man and a woman" from California's marriage laws (which the bill actually proposes to do), they must first convince the voters to pass another ballot proposition creating same-sex "marriage" statewide.
However, unlike the widespread abundance of political arrogance in Sacramento, voters are unlikely to change their minds on something as sacred as marriage.
Given the increased attacks upon marriage by judges and politicians, it is predictable that Californians will ultimately pass an amendment protecting marriage once and for all in the state constitution.
As marriage for a man and a woman is completely natural, voter backlash against out-of-touch politicians is both a natural and beneficial check in our democracy.
And who cares if our kids get jealous at other parents' marriages. It takes a village to raise kids!
That is why they have to pass the Marriage Amendment Act. Defining by 'law' that marriage is between a man and a women. Period. End of discussion.
California is very liberal. They don't believe in people voting. They prefer to have dictators in black order the masses into submission.
The Hollywood Communist trials weren't held for nothing, you know! The federal government had a very, very good reason to hold the trials.
The California state legislature is a den of iniquity. And until the people in this state wake up and recognize the Democrat-led caucus for what it really is--a cabal of Marxists and freaks, California, Gov. Arnold and the handful of Republicans notwithstanding, will go straight to Hades in a handbasket.
Redistricting isn't going to be enough--Mark Leno and his ilk NEED TO BE VOTED OUT OF OFFICE. PERIOD.
-Regards, T.
Yep. The country could put an end to this homo nonsense once and for all.
If they want to engage in some kind of strange sex fetish with each other, fine, but leave the normal folks and the American way of life out of it.
There are other options:
The Senate could pass legislation barring federal court review of marriage laws. The House did so last year, but Frist has yet to bring it up for debate in the Senate. Of course the downside is that there is probably nothing stopping the very federal courts targeted in the legislation from ruling such a law to be 'unconstitutional.' Which leads to the second alternative...
...the supposedly coequal Legislative and Executive branches could refuse to enforce the inevitable imposition of gay marriage/civil unions by the Sup Court. It would be a situation we haven't dealt with in a very long time, but if anything is worth a constitutional crisis then its the specific fight over marriage, and the general effort to push the judiciary back to the bounds envisioned and intended by the Framers.
But yes, a federal Marriage Amendment would be great, and if worded carefully its hard to imagine even the most creative and arrogant leftist judge daring to try and go around it. Part of me hopes that the Sup Court addresses this issue sooner rather than later, so that current public opinion can be taken advantage of in the effort to overturn the Court. At least dozens of Senators and Representatives justified their vote against the Federal Marriage Amendment last year on the grounds that they support 'letting the states decide' and that while they favor traditional marriage they don't want a one size fits all solution, and on the fact that the Federal DOMA has not been overturned...yet. If the SCOTUS were to impose gay marriage/civil unions then these pro-traditional marriage and pro-let the states decide politicians would have their bluff called, and forced to take a definitive stand either in favor of or oppostion to gay marriage.
That's what judges are for.
http://www.savecalifornia.com has set up a free email lobbying system to automatically notify every state legislator to oppose AB 19. SPREAD THE WORD!
Thanks, Susanna. Will do if I can figure out the computerese. If not, I will get my teenagers to help. Bless you.
Prove it.
Good one. Its sad, but true.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.