QUEERLY BELOVED: Action filed to remove S.F. mayor, AG

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | Friday, February 27, 2004

[JohnHuang2]

QUEERLY BELOVED
Action filed to remove S.F. mayor, AG
Officials 'breached' oaths for not stopping same-sex marriage

---

Posted: February 27, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com

A traditional-family lobby group involved in previous attempts to stop San Francisco's unprecedented issuance of same-sex marriage licenses has filed legal action calling for the removal of Attorney General Bill Lockyer, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom and City and County Clerk Nancy Alfaro.

The Sacramento-based Pro-Family Law Center charges the officials have breached their oaths of office.

Under Newsom's order, San Francisco issued the first officially sanctioned marriage licenses to same-sex couples in American history Feb. 12. More than 3,000 ceremonies have been conducted since then.

"Confidence in the rule of law is a most fundamental but fragile prerequisite of a democratic society," asserted Scott Lively of Lively and Ackerman, which is representing the Pro-Family Law Center in the action.

"By his reckless political experiment in civil rebellion, Mayor Newsom threatens the peace of the entire nation," Lively said. " He is a contemptuous scofflaw trying to cloak himself in the mantle of a civil rights crusader. Lockyer and Alfaro are nothing less than accessories before the fact."

The legal action charges Lockyer was given advanced notice of Newsom's intentions to break state law but did not intervene.

Alfaro, the complaint says, assisted Newsom by illegally altering the official state marriage license forms and pledge.

The Pro-Family Law Center contends Newsom's and Alfaro's actions, and Lockyer's complicity, "constitute contempt for the rule of law and for the constitutions they vowed to defend."

The group notes each official took an oath of office vowing to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the constitution of the state of California."

The legal action, a "Quo Warranto Petition," essentially is a citizen's demand upon the government to prosecute the illegal activity of another citizen.

The group noted the irony that the petition must be filed with Lockyer's office. Because the attorney general is both a material witness in two lawsuits against Newsom, and charged with complicity in the violation of the law, it has asked Lockyer to appoint an independent counsel or refer the case to U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft's office.

As WorldNetDaily reported, two key figures in the successful effort to recall Gov. Gray Davis last year have issued a similar threat to Lockyer over his "inaction" on San Francisco's defiance of state marriage law.

Howard Kaloogian, a candidate for the U.S. Senate, and Ted Costa, executive director of the anti-tax group People's Advocate, say they will launch a recall campaign if Lockyer does not crack down on San Francisco's same-sex marriages.

Lockyer has said he will ask the California Supreme Court to decide the legality of same-sex marriage by tomorrow.

Last Friday, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger ordered Lockyer "to take immediate steps" to have a court declare the city's actions illegal. The attorney general's initial response was to dismiss the order as political hyperbole.

Kaloogian compared Lockyer's "weeks of inaction" to the immediate response last week of New Mexico Attorney General Patricia Madrid to stop a clerk in Bernalillo, N.M., from issuing licenses to same-sex couples.

"We're putting Lockyer on notice that we will recall him if he doesn't do his job," Kaloogian told the Los Angeles Times.

Last week, two judges refused the requests by traditional-family defenders to stop the same-sex marriage licenses. The two cases were consolidated Friday, and a March 29 hearing has been scheduled.

[JohnHuang2]

Friday, February 27, 2004

Quote of the Day by kevao

[longtermmemmory]

Does anyone know if it is true that homosexuals were not being charged money for their "marriage" licenses?

[Squantos]

Sure would like to see some Sheriff out there start issuing CHL's while the laws of Kalipornia are being ignored ...........

[Humidston]

Well it's about danged time someone held these officials accountable for dereliction of duty.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

I thought the charge was $82 !

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Good!

[Indy Pendance]

What a great title. I really hope something becomes of this. If any of us blantantly broke the law, we'd be in jail. I just don't understand why this mayor has not been arrested.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

"We're putting Lockyer on notice that we will recall him if he doesn't do his job," Kaloogian told the Los Angeles Times.

Love the Recall weapon!

[JohnHuang2]

Bump!

[CyberAnt]

I heard they were being charged $82 dollars - or something close to that. Hmmmm? This is going to get interesting.

[little jeremiah]

Homosexual Agenda Ping list - Let me know if anyone wants on or off this ping list.

Soon I will post some stuff from Lively's website, he is doing a yeoman job fighting the homosexual tsunami. If you donate to his organization (even a pittance) he sends you a newsletter every month. Anyone who wants to help his organization should check out his website, he's got a lot of books and materials, and his book (along with co-author Kevin Abrams) "The Ping Swastika" is a book everyone should read.

[ATCNavyRetiree]

Sheesh...California's image sure is going down the toilet!
Instead of the "Golden State" it is now the "Golden Shower State."

[scripter]

The Ping Swastika" is a book everyone should read.

Even better is The Pink Swastika. ;-)

[heleny]

The legal action charges Lockyer was given advanced notice of Newsom's intentions to break state law but did not intervene.
...
...Newsom's and Alfaro's actions, and Lockyer's complicity, "constitute contempt for the rule of law and for the constitutions they vowed to defend."

How does what they did violate the US Constitution or CA Constitution? Is there something unconstitutional about their threatening the peace of the nation or eroding confidence in the government?

Obviously, they are violating various CA state laws, such as for issuing/accepting fake documents or recognizing non-marriages, but I'm not sure I see the Constitutional angle.

[ATOMIC_PUNK]

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS


SEC. 31. (a) The State shall not discriminate against, or grant
preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of
race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of
public employment, public education, or public contracting.
(b) This section shall apply only to action taken after the
section's effective date.
(c) Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as prohibiting
bona fide qualifications based on sex which are reasonably necessary
to the normal operation of public employment, public education, or
public contracting.
(d) Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as invalidating
any court order or consent decree which is in force as of the
effective date of this section.
(e) Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as prohibiting
action which must be taken to establish or maintain eligibility for
any federal program, where ineligibility would result in a loss of
federal funds to the State.
(f) For the purposes of this section, "State" shall include, but
not necessarily be limited to, the State itself, any city, county,
city and county, public university system, including the University
of California, community college district, school district, special
district, or any other political subdivision or governmental
instrumentality of or within the State.
(g) The remedies available for violations of this section shall be
the same, regardless of the injured party's race, sex, color,
ethnicity, or national origin, as are otherwise available for
violations of then-existing California antidiscrimination law.
(h) This section shall be self-executing. If any part or parts of
this section are found to be in conflict with federal law or the
United States Constitution, the section shall be implemented to the
maximum extent that federal law and the United States Constitution
permit. Any provision held invalid shall be severable from the
remaining portions of this section.


http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_1

[ATOMIC_PUNK]

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS


SEC. 26. The provisions of this Constitution are mandatory and
prohibitory, unless by express words they are declared to be
otherwise.


Or in other words this is the law of the land unless we decide to break it then it dont count !

[goldstategop]

The rule of law means holding public officials who flout or ignore the law accountable. When the U.S Senate acquitted Bill Clinton, it established a dangerous precedent of official lawlessness that is now taking root in California and across this nation. If we are to keep our republic, we must remove and prosecute and send to prison those in power who betray their oaths of office and undermine the law. For our sake and the sake of our children.

[onyx]

I am voting FOR Howard Kaloogian in the GOP primary on March 2, 2004.

[stopem]

Right, I agree. I am glad to see that there are groups like the one mentioned in the article that are willing to fight for our rights as a family unit.
Sad that it's come to this where we have to fight for our rights.

[goldstategop]

Howard Bump!