Posted on 04/10/2007 5:02:34 PM PDT by kellynla
Sacramento,California -- A Democrat-controlled committee in the California Legislature has passed full-blown homosexual "marriages." Tuesday's vote by the Assembly Judiciary Committee was 7 to 3, with all Democrats in favor of so-called "same-sex marriages" and all Republicans supporting real marriage between a man and a woman.
"Shame on the Democrat politicians for attacking and redefining marriage," said Randy Thomasson, president of Campaign for Children and Families (CCF), a leading nonpartisan California organization defending marriage and family, who today testified in committee against AB 43. "This is an attack upon the voters and our system of government as much as it is an attack on marriage. AB 43 shamelessly violates the California Constitution, which expressly prohibits the Legislature from repealing voter-approved ballot initiatives. This is political arrogance in the extreme, and another reason for the voters to despise the California Legislature."
In his committee testimony, Thomasson accused AB 43 author Mark Leno (Democrat -- San Francisco) and other pro-AB 43 legislators of violating their oath of office to defend the California Constitution, Article 2, Section 10(c). During his remarks, Thomasson also displayed the pro-homosexuality children's book, "Daddy's Wedding," predicting AB 43 would result in schoolchildren being taught to honor homosexual "marriages."
Voting "yes" on AB 43 to destroy the definition of marriage:
Dave Jones (Democrat -- Sacramento County) Noreen Evans (Democrat -- Santa Rosa, Napa, Vallejo) Mike Feuer (Democrat -- West Hollywood, Beverly Hills, Studio City) Paul Krekorian (Democrat -- Glendale, Burbank, North Hollywood) John Laird (Democrat -- Santa Cruz and Monterey counties) Lloyd Levine (Democrat -- Van Nuys, Reseda, Canoga Park, West Hills, Northridge) Sally Lieber (Democrat -- San Jose, Santa Clara, Mountain View, Cupertino)
Voting "no" on AB 43, thus honoring marriage and the voters:
Van Tran (Republican -- Garden Grove, Westminster, Fountain Valley, Costa Mesa) Rick Keene (Republican -- Butte, Yuba, Nevada, Sierra, Plumas, Lassen counties) Anthony Adams (Republican -- Hesperia, Apple Valley, Glendora, San Dimas, Monrovia)
Why the California Legislature cannot create "same-sex marriages" and why AB 43 is unconstitutional, unlawful and undemocratic:
1. Californians Have Voted to Reserve Marriage for a Man and a Woman Proposition 22 passed in the 2000 Primary Election by 61.4 percent of the vote. Prop. 22, an initiative statute, placed "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California" into the Family Code.
2. The California Constitution Prohibits the Legislature from Repealing the Vote of the People CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 2 VOTING, INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM, AND RECALL SEC. 10. (c) The Legislature may amend or repeal referendum statutes. It may amend or repeal an initiative statute by another statute that becomes effective only when approved by the electors unless the initiative statute permits amendment or repeal without their approval (which Proposition 22 did not permit).
3. The Courts Have Ruled That the Legislature Cannot Repeal the People's Vote The California Court of Appeal, 1st District Marriage Cases (October 5, 2006) "The Legislature has control of the subject of marriage, subject only to initiatives passed by the voters and constitutional restrictions." (Thus, the Constitution restricts the Legislature on marriage because of Proposition 22.)
4. The Courts Have Ruled That Prop. 22 Prohibits the Legislature from Creating Same-Sex Marriages The California Court of Appeal, 3rd District Knight v. Superior Court (April 4, 2005) "The plain language of Proposition 22 and its initiative statute, section 308.5, reaffirms the definition of marriage in section 300, by stating that only marriage between a man and a woman shall be valid and recognized in California. This limitation ensures that California will not legitimize or recognize same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions, as it otherwise would be required to do pursuant to section 308, and that California will not permit same-sex partners to validly marry within the state."
"Married was created for a man and a woman, a husband and wife," said Thomasson. "This natural and sacred institution has always been supported by the people of California. The state Constitution expressly prohibits state legislators from overturning voter-approved initiatives. But apparently, the Democrat politicians have no problem destroying the democratic vote of the people. Therefore, the voters must rise up again to protect marriage for a man and a woman, this time in the California Constitution, far above the reach of corrupt politicians and judges. In the meantime, the people expect Governor Schwarzenegger to terminate unlawful bill if it reaches his desk."
ping
The Dims are all morally as well as physically diseased
Shrug. At least its the legislature and not an unelected judge.
2. The California Constitution Prohibits the Legislature from Repealing the Vote of the People CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 2 VOTING, INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM, AND RECALL SEC. 10. (c) The Legislature may amend or repeal referendum statutes. It may amend or repeal an initiative statute by another statute that becomes effective only when approved by the electors unless the initiative statute permits amendment or repeal without their approval (which Proposition 22 did not permit).
3. The Courts Have Ruled That the Legislature Cannot Repeal the People's Vote The California Court of Appeal, 1st District Marriage Cases (October 5, 2006) "The Legislature has control of the subject of marriage, subject only to initiatives passed by the voters and constitutional restrictions." (Thus, the Constitution restricts the Legislature on marriage because of Proposition 22.)
4. The Courts Have Ruled That Prop. 22 Prohibits the Legislature from Creating Same-Sex Marriages The California Court of Appeal, 3rd District Knight v. Superior Court (April 4, 2005) "The plain language of Proposition 22 and its initiative statute, section 308.5, reaffirms the definition of marriage in section 300, by stating that only marriage between a man and a woman shall be valid and recognized in California. This limitation ensures that California will not legitimize or recognize same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions, as it otherwise would be required to do pursuant to section 308, and that California will not permit same-sex partners to validly marry within the state."
Let the courts keep overturning the liberal, marriage-hating, legislature. The people of California have spoken (in Spanish and English, no doubt).
Earthquakes can sometimes happen for a reason.
It seems to me that some liberal politicians are in contempt of court.
I just read somewhere that homosexuals are only about 2 percent of the population. Yet they get all this respect, and they’re not even beheading anybody. What percent are we conservatives?
Where is the big one Alice! (earthquake I mean)
“I didn’t see this on any of the wire services.”
Surprised?
BTW, this should speak volumes about the differences between the parties.
At times Arnold does the right thing. I hope this is the time.
According to this article, Arnold has promised to veto the gay “marriage” bill:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1815358/posts
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.