Craig DeLuz

Writer, Actor, Public Speaker, Media Personality
Posts Tagged ‘Protecting Marriage’

Why Values Matter- Republican appointed justices approve gay marriage

While Republican candidates and organizations send out a flurry of press releases and statements decrying last week’s California Supreme Court decision, few in the GOP have discussed the fact that three of the four judges who voted to legalize same-sex marriage were appointed by Republicans. Joyce Kennard (Deukmeijan), Kathryn Mickle (Wilson) and Chief Justice Ronald George (Wilson) joined Carlos Moreno (Davis), the only Democrat on the Supreme Court in legalizing same-sex marriage.

If there was ever an argument for supporting Real Republican candidates, it is the travesty that has been hoisted upon the voters of California by these liberal Republican Supreme Court justices. Take for example Chief Justice Ronald George. He was appointed to the Court in 1991 by Gov. Pete Wilson and has too often been on the wrong side of Republican values in his rulings.

In 1996 he and Justice Mickle were in the minority of a 4-3 decision that upheld a law requiring minors to obtain their parent’s consent before getting an abortion. A year later, Justice George would be a part of the 4-3 majority who, in an unprecedented move voted to overturn their own ruling.

It is also worth noting that the key to this reversal was the fact that Justice Armand Arabian, who voted to protect parents’ rights retired not long after the first decision. Unfortunately, he was then replaced by Justice Ming Chin, another Wilson appointee who would then vote to overturn the parental consent law passed by the legislature.

This just goes to show how schizophrenic our Republican controlled court can be when it comes to moral issues; one minute they are constitutional, the next minute they are not. Too many of their rulings have been textbook examples of liberal judicial activism. AND THESE ARE REPUBLICAN APPOINTEES!!!!

I would hate to see what the court would be like with a bunch of Democrat appoints. Of course, with Republicans like these, who needs Democrats?

Memo to Republicans: If we elect Real Republicans, we will get Real Justices and Real Justice!

Queer aisle for straight guys

After evaluating the tax benefits provide to married couples, two straight men have decided to take the plunge! of the new same-sex marriage laws in Canada.

The Ottawa Sun reports:

“The proposal came last Monday at a Toronto bar amid shock and laughter from their friends. But the two — both of whom were previously married and both of whom are looking for a good woman to love –…”

I don’t know that any commentary is really needed. But I do find it interesting to see how quickly the absurd becomes reality once you remove common sense from the equation.

Craig DeLuz

Visit The Home of Uncommon Sense…
www.craigdeluz.com

Do Domestic Partnerships Equate to Same-Sex Marriage? Courts are Inconsistent!


The California Supreme Court stated that domestic partners must be treated the same as married spouses because as California Supreme Court Justice Carlos Moreno stated “the Legislature has granted legal recognition comparable to marriage.”

But doesn’t that mean that the Legislature violated the state constitution by amending Prop. 22? There is a glaring inconsistency in the California court system when it comes to the issue of whether domestic partnerships laws have made them significantly similar to marriage.

The Courts say Domestic Partnerships and Marriage are Completely Different.

As originally created back in 1999, domestic partnerships carried with them very limited rights and benefits. For example, they allowed partners to visit one another in the hospital and offered a vehicle whereby private companies and municipalities could offer benefits to the partners of their employees. Then in 2000 California passed the nation’s first ever measure protecting the definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman. Prop. 22 was chaptered into law as the Defense of Marriage Act.

Since that time the California legislature passed two measures designed to elevate domestic partnerships to a level equivalent to marriage. The first was AB 25, which was passed in 2001 and acted as a weather balloon of sorts; in that it provided only a few additional marriage benefits to domestic partnerships. These included the ability to:

1. Make medical decisions in the hospital or act as a conservator.
2. Inherit property without a will.
3. Administer an estate.
4. Seek compensation for the loss of economic or social support.
5. Relocate with a domestic partner without losing unemployment benefits.
6. Use sick leave to care for a family member or provide them with employer-based health coverage without additional taxation.
7. File disability benefits on behalf of an incapacitated partner.
8. Adopt a partner’s child using the stepparent adoption process.
9. Continue health coverage for surviving domestic partners of retired government workers.”


Then in 2003 the Legislature passed AB 205 which gave to domestic partners all of the rest of the rights and benefits afforded to married couples under California law. Interestingly though, this was not accomplished by enumerating these rights. Rather, they chose the following language which requires domestic partners to look at the rights granted to married spouses in order to determine what their rights are:

Registered domestic partners have the same rights, protections, and benefits, and are subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under [California state] law, whether they derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules, government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses.” Cal. Fam. Code 297.5(a).

In 2004, Sacramento Superior Court Judge Loren McMaster ruled that AB 205 did not undermine Prop. 22 in that it did not make domestic partnerships equivalent to traditional marriage. The California Third District Court of Appeals would later support his ruling stating:

The domestic partners act does not amend the defense of marriage initiative and therefore, it’s enactment without subsequent voter approval does not violate California’s Constitution,…

And within the last month, the California Supreme Court ruled unanimously (6-0) not to hear the case, thus supporting the McMaster ruling and that of the Appellate Court. This dubious move occurred right after the Judge Janice Rogers-Brown, the lone conservative on the court stepped down to accept an appointment to the Federal Court of Appeals.

The Courts say Domestic Partnerships and Marriage are Significantly Similar.

In March of this year, San Francisco Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer ruled that Prop. 22 was unconstitutional. As a major part of his reasoning, he pointed to the Legislature’s passage of AB 25 & AB 205.

…the existence of marriage-like rights without marriage actually cuts against the existence of a rational government interest for denying marriage to same-sex couples. California’s enactment of rights for same-sex couples belies any argument that the state would have a legitimate interest in denying marriage in order to preclude same-sex couples from acquiring some marital right that might somehow be inappropriate for them to have.

Kramer surmised that because the legislature passed laws creating an institution significantly similar to marriage (AB 25 and AB 205) there is no rational reason for the state to deny full marriage to same-sex couples.

The idea that marriage-like rights without the marriage is adequate smacks of a concept long rejected by the courts: separate but equal.

And in this most recent ruling California Supreme Court Justice Moreno wrote in the opinion for this unanimous 6-0 ruling that like the decision to marry, a decision to enter into a domestic partnership results in “the creation of a new family unit with all of its implications in terms of personal commitment as well as legal rights and obligations,” and that For those couples, he said, “the Legislature has granted legal recognition comparable to marriage.”

His assertion is that by extending all of the rights and benefits of marriage to domestic partners, California decided to “equalize” domestic partnerships with marriage.

“In creating domestic partners, the Legislature has also created a policy favoring such partnerships similar to the policy favoring marriage,”

The Inconsistency

Within one month the California Supreme Court has stood on opposite sides of this issue. By not addressing the McMaster decision, the statement was made that domestic partnerships have not been made significantly similar to marriage. But this most recent opinion is consistent with Judge Kramer’s assertion that domestic partnerships are now significantly similar to marriage. Well folks…Which is it?

Why does it Matter?

California Attorney General Bill Lockyer is lobbying to have the Kramer decision advance past the appellate courts and go directly to the State Supreme Court. Once there, it will be difficult for the court not to address this inconsistency in their reasoning.

If they rule that recently passed legislation has made domestic partnerships significantly similar to marriage, then that means that the Legislature in fact violated the state constitution by amending an initiative passed by the voters. Article II, Section 10(c) of the California Constitution states “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.”

And while this should result in the dissolution of domestic partner laws, it could also result in the termination of Prop 22. This would not necessarily make same-sex marriage legal. But by eliminating the ban on such unions, it would open the door for the legislature to pass legislation making them legal.

On the other hand, if the court rules that domestic partnerships are not similar to marriage, then this will undermine the basis of Judge Kramer’s argument in that the passage of AB 25 & AB 205 do not constitute a significant change in public policy in regards to marriage and does not violate the separate but equal clause. Such a ruling should keep Prop. 22 in place, but may solidify the constitutionality of domestic partnerships in California.

What can we do?

Neither of the above mentioned scenarios are win-win. Both represent partial victories that would also open the door to the redefining and undermining of the institution of marriage. The only way to fully protect marriage in the State of California is by passing a constitutional amendment to protect marriage.

Currently there are two amendments that have received title and summery by the Attorney General’s office. One is offered by VoteYesMarriage.com and the other by ProtectMarriage.com. I encourage you to visit both of their websites and review the language of their respective amendments. Please support one or the other, or even both!

If nothing else, the facts laid out in this commentary should serve as proof that the only way we are going to fully protect marriage is by codifying it in law as a part of our state constitution.

Craig DeLuz

Visit The Home of Uncommon Sense…
www.craigdeluz.com

Lockyer accused of playing partisan politics…So what else is new!


Attorney General, Bill Lockyer has solidified himself in California history as one of the state’s most successful liberal partisan politicians. So it is hard to understand how accusations that he is allowing his partisan bias to interfere with his job as the state’s top law enforcement officer could come as much of a surprise.

The Los Angeles Times writes about a how Governor Schwarzenegger’s office, Republicans and conservatives demonstrate that Lockyer is putting politics ahead of his duties.

The Democratic attorney general has become, in fact, a major pain to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Republicans and conservative activists who have been pushing their agendas in the November special election and beyond.

Lockyer — who under state law is required to review voter initiatives — has prompted complaints about what Republicans see as a liberal bias in his actions on four initiative efforts this year.

In the most recent case, a judge ordered a Schwarzenegger-backed redistricting measure off the ballot after Lockyer sued over a procedural flaw. His actions also have prompted the governor to delay his planned overhaul of the pension system for public employees and spurred the threat of another lawsuit by backers of a constitutional ban on same-sex marriages.

While liberals will try to dismiss these charges as political sour grapes, objective observers have to lend some credibility them considering they come from one of Lockyer’s former top aides.

But Peter Siggins, Schwarzenegger’s chief attorney, said the process with Lockyer was a little more complex. Siggins comes with a unique perspective; he served as a top-level deputy to Lockyer for five years before he started working for Schwarzenegger.

Lockyer “asked question and would make suggestions,” Siggins said. “But if you are deputy A.G., or even chief deputy A.G. like me, and the attorney general has a suggestion or a question, then you try to discern his policy perspective and you try to give life to that.”

How bad is his bias? Keeping in mind the following:

1. Lockyer all but admitted guilt by rewriting the title and summery for the “Live Within Your Means” initiative.

2. In the title and summery of the Marriage Protection Amendment submitted by VoteYesMarriage.com the Attorney General lied when he stated that it would prevent domestic partners from visiting their partners in the hospital; as this has never been a right of marriage, but is based on hospital policy.

3. The AG had several options to deal with the clerical error related to Proposition 77. But he chose the most extreme; to throw out what was clearly the most popular initiative on the ballot, sporting the signatures of one million California voters.

4. While liberal city officials in San Francisco, on the order of their Democrat Mayor Gavin Newsom were blatantly and knowingly violated California law by issuing same-sex marriage licenses. Lockyer had to be ordered by the Governor to put an end to these criminal acts, an has yet to prosecute anyone for breaking the law.

I could go on and on, but you get the point. We don’t need the LA Times to point out the obvious. But it does show how far out there Attorney General Bill Lockyer has gotten. Even this liberal rag can’t ignore his blatant partisanship.

Craig DeLuz

Visit The Home of Uncommon Sense…
www.craigdeluz.com

CA Supreme Court Rules in favor of Counterfeit Marriage

The California Supreme court has opted to let AB 205, California’s Counterfeit Marriage Act stand.

Sacramento News 10 reports:

The California Supreme Court has upheld a new law that grants registered domestic partners many of the same rights as those given to heterosexual married couples.

The justices unanimously upheld appellate and trial court rulings that the sweeping measure does not conflict with a voter-approved initiative defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

What AB 205 Says…

Registered domestic partners have the same rights, protections, and benefits, and are subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under [California state] law, whether they derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules, government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses.” Cal. Fam. Code 297.5(a). Registered domestic partners will have less security than heterosexual married couples if they travel or move outside of California.

In other words, domestic partner’s must look to the rights granted to spouses (married individuals of the oposite sex) in order to determine thier rights.

How is this not marriage by another name?

More Detials to follow!!!!!!

Craig DeLuz

Visit The Home of Uncommon Sense…
www.craigdeluz.com

California Democrats “Gut and Amend” Moral Issues

Same Sex Marriage and Assisted Suicide are two of the most hotly contested issues in California. Bills that would have legalizing both were killed in the State Assembly. But thanks to a technical process known as “Gut and Amend”, Democrats plan to reincarnate both measures in the State Senate.

The San Diego Union Tribune reports that Mark Leno (D-San Francisco) is currently looking for a bill to hijack.

Despite a defeat in the Assembly and a likely veto from Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, advocates of same-sex marriage plan to revive their legislation in the Senate.

Yesterday, they began using a legislative technique known as “gut and amend” to replace the provisions of an Assembly bill that’s already in the Senate with provisions from the defeated same-sex marriage bill.

Additionally, Assisted Suicide has been revived by Assembly members Mark Levine (D-Van Nuys) and Patty Berg (D-Eureka) ; a maneuver that went ignored by the mainstream media. But it was reported here “California Assisted Suicide Bill is Brought Back to Life” and Californians Against Assisted Suicide issued a press release stating:

“When the Assisted Suicide bill couldn’t muster 20 votes in the Assembly, the proponents declined to even bring it up for a vote,” said Tim Rosales, a spokesperson for the anti-suicide coalition. “The authors hijacked a bill that had already passed the Assembly and is in the Senate so they would not have to show how truly weak their support was.”

This just demonstrates the commitment and resolve held by those who seek to undermine the values of our culture. Defeat will not slow them down. They will not allow the will of the people or the rule to stop them, and will disregard both unless they fit within their agenda. Leno makes it clear that the fact that his measure violates the law and the will of the voters means nothing.

“I can continue the fight for a critically important civil rights issue,” said Assemblyman Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, the author of the same-sex marriage bill. “Why would I not go forward?

The enemies of moral values are well funded, politically savvy and have adopted a long term approach. On the other hand, our side is poorly funded, politically unrefined and have a tendency to be sporadic and reactive only to immediate threats.

It is crucial that we become proactive in the fight to preserve traditional values. We must be ready to fight at all times. And often we will be fighting the same battle over and over again. But it is crucial that we stand against every reincarnated, resurrected, reinvented and reintroduced version of the same immoral madness. And when all is said and done; be prepared to fight the battle again.

As the bible says, “…having done all to stand, Stand…”

Craig DeLuz

Visit The Home of Uncommon Sense…
www.craigdeluz.com

Why Same-Sex Marriage and Interracial Marriage are not the Same

A central part of argument used by those who advocate for the legalization of same-sex marriage is based on comparing the issues surrounding the prohibition of these unions to those which once outlawed interracial marriage. These individuals make the case that both instances involved laws which disallowed marriage between certain individuals. And because we would not tolerate the banning of interracial unions, we should not have laws that prohibit two people of the same sex from marrying.

While on the surface this seems to be a very compelling argument it is in fact, overly simplistic. Furthermore, it ignores facts and precedent that has been previously established by decades of family law litigation related to the institution of marriage and the government’s interest in promoting and regulating it.

First of all, it is important to note that laws prohibiting interracial marriage were actually attempts to do away with the traditional definition of marriage, thus redefining it. However, laws prohibiting same-sex marriage are significantly different in that they are designed to preserve the traditional definition of marriage. In point of fact, the term “same-sex marriage” is, by its very nature an oxymoron.

Consider that since the beginning of time, every cultural, religious and legal definition of marriage recognized it as a union between a man and a woman. Even today, there is no major religion that, as a part of its doctrinal teachings, recognizes same-sex unions. And furthermore, every dictionary definition (historical to modern day) has described marriage as being between a man and a woman. For example under the following definitions, the phrases “same-sex” and “marriage” are incompatible:

• Marriage: “That honorable contract that persons of different sexes make with one another.” A New General English Dictionary (1740).
• Marriage: “1 a (1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife . . .” Merriam-Webster online, April 20, ( 2005).

Such is not the case with interracial marriage. As a matter fact, in the case of Loving v. Virginia, the court ruled that laws banning marriage between a man and a woman of different races were inconsistent with the traditional definition of marriage and worked against the government’s interest in promoting marriage.

And what was the government’s primary interest in promoting marriage? All case law points to procreation as the number one reason for government’s interest in promoting and regulating the institution of marriage. The courts have deemed that government’s fostering of this optimal environment to have and raise children is the primary interest government has in promoting and regulating marriage.

In the case of Baker v. Nelson the court states “The institution of marriage as a union of man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis.

Additionally, in Skinner v. Oklahoma, the court is quoted as saying “Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.” In Loving v. Virginia the court cites this quote from Skinner as the foundational argument for shooting down laws banning interracial marriage.

This is not the case with same-sex marriage, as no offspring can ever naturally result from such a union. Thus making procreation impossible. Therefore the government’s primary interest for promoting marriage does not apply to same-sex unions.

Because of the complexity of our legal system, this message may not be the easiest to communicate to those who do not speak “Legaleaze”. However, it is intellectually honest and supported by the facts. We must not allow those who seek jump on the civil rights bandwagon to get away with convoluting the facts and distorting the truth….

Marriage was, is and always will be a union of one man and one woman. Any other definition just doesn’t fit.

Craig DeLuz

Visit The Home of Uncommon Sense…
www.craigdeluz.com

NAACP Withdraws Resolution Supporting Same-Sex Marriage

Example

Activists on both sides of the same-sex marriage debate were anticipating a heated discussion on the topic during the upcoming NAACP National Convention in July. Well it looks like that debate will not be taking place after all.

Uncommon Sense Media Group has verified that the California Conference of the NAACP has voted to withdraw it’s resolution from consideration by the National Convention. Rumor has it that Julian Bond, himself a supporter of same-sex marriage, made the call to the California chapter and urged them to pull their resolution. Shortly afterwards, the executive committee was convened and voted to withdraw the measure.

Speculation has it that this move by the Bond does not represent a change of heart. Rather, it demonstrates his belief that such a resolution would not survive a vote by the NAACP National Conference. Such a defeat would be a major step backwards for same-sex marriage advocates.

As you may recall, in a post last month “NAACP Trades Marriage for Memberships” I predicted that this might occur.

The NAACP National Convention is coming up in July. It will be interesting to see if Julian Bond (a supporter of same sex marriage) will let the CA NAACP resolution see the light of day.

Although, it was easy to see this coming, as the original passage of the resolution created a firestorm of controversy. At the center of the discussion was the declaration by California NAACP President Alice Huffman that:

“This issue is really an issue that is not clearly understood by many segments of my community, especially the fundamentalists”

Insinuating that Blacks did not understand the issue of marriage. (Also see “NAACP thinks Blacks are too stupid to know what marriage is.“)

Craig DeLuz

Visit The Home of Uncommon Sense…
www.craigdeluz.com

It’s Not About Marriage. It’s About Acceptance.

Example

In yesterday’s debate on same-sex marriage, California Assemblyman Dennis Mountjoy made what was probably the most profound statement I have ever heard from him. He exposed the effort to define marriage as nothing more than an attempt to gain acceptance.

The San Jose Mercury News quoted Assemblywoman Jackie Goldberg as she attempted to characterize those who do not support same-sex marriage as bigots:

“Unless you are willing to look me in the face and say that I am not a human being just as you are, you have no right to deny me the access to marriage in this state or anywhere else,”

Please note that Ms. Goldberg does not mention the rights, she is seeking the acceptance as a human being. This sentiment was echoed in the committee hearings where same-sex couples testified one after another that government approval of their unions would hopefully aid them in gaining the acceptance of their families.

What Ms. Goldberg does not understand is that those of us who support traditional marriage love and accept her as a human being. And despite our moral objections to her lifestyle choice, we do not seek to outlaw her right to love or be intimate with whomever she wishes. What we object to is being forced to honor that lifestyle. And that is exactly what we would be forced to do if our government put it’s official stamp of approval on it.

Dennis Mountjoy was speaking for most Californians when he stood up to defend, not just marriage, but traditional moral values.

“What the homosexuals in the state of California and in the United States want is not rights, they want acceptance,” said Mountjoy. “They want my children to be told that homosexuality is OK, that it is natural. I’m here to tell you that it is not OK and it is not natural and I will not have my children taught that.”

And this is not a right-wing, religious extremist, Republican point of view. As a matter of fact, 13 Democrats either voted against AB 19 or at the very least refused to support it. Democrat Assemblyman Alberto Torrico made it clear that this was not as much about civil rights, but about what is right.

“I’m going against part of me that’s been a civil rights champion all my life,” said Torrico, who did not vote on the bill. “But it’s all about what I think God wants for us, and I can’t get around that.”

Craig DeLuz

Visit The Home of Uncommon Sense…
www.craigdeluz.com

California Says No to Same Sex Marriage… This Year!

AB 19 (Leno) came up for a vote this evening. All of the Republicans and even a few Democrats stood up for marriage.

I cannot tell you how difficult it was to watch the debate and not be saddened by the fact that such a debate should even be necessary.

Assemblyman Tom Harmon received a legal opinion from the California Legislative Counsel stating that AB 19 violates state law, because any measure that seeks to amend or substitute a measure passed by initiative must also be passed by initiative. Mr. Leno was also advised of this opinion and still pushed this bill.

Sacramento Assemblyman Dave Jones stood up and declared that Proposition 22 only spoke to marriages performed outside of the state of California, which is a complete lie.

In an affidavit by the author of Prop 22 it was noted that the language was constructed with the intention of outlawing the validation of same-sex marriages in California or recognizing same-sex marriages performed in other states. Thus the language “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid (addressing in state marriages) or recognized (addressing out of state marriages) in California.” And Assemblyman Ray Haynes did a masterful job of pointing this out.

As of 6:30pm the initial vote was 35 in favor and 37 against with 8 members not voting. The bill was put on call, to give members who have not yet voted a chance to vote. This means that unless Democrats are successful in getting the support of 6 of the 8 members who have not voted, AB 19 will fail.

Good Job!!!!!

Craig DeLuz

Visit The Home of Uncommon Sense…
www.craigdeluz.com

According to Lockyer Same Sex Relationships = Marriage

This Wednesday, the California Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on a case involving child support obligations in same sex relationships.

This is a memo issued to the press by the office of California Attorney General, Bill Lockyer.

**Notice how they equate “Same Sex Relationships” to “Marriage” **

To: Interested reporters

Subject:CA Supreme Court to Decide On Children’s Rights in Same-Sex Marriages

On Tuesday, May 24th the California Channel will televise oral arguments in a landmark California Supreme Court case that will determine the rights of children in same-sex marriages.

At issue is whether children of same-sex couples can be denied the opportunity to receive child support from two parents, and whether a person can be allowed to avoid child-support responsibility merely because his or her former partner is the same sex.

Lockyer’s office will argue that same-sex couples have the same legal duty to financially support the children they bring into this world as those of opposite-sex couples, because when only one of two people is required to provide support, it’s the children who unfairly bear the burden.

On behalf of the public, California Bill Lockyer has invoked his authority to challenge a Court of Appeals ruling, Elisa Maria B., v. Superior Court of El Dorado County. The appeals court ruled that one of the parents in a separated same-sex couple does not have child-support obligations.

Oral arguments in this and two other same-sex parent cases will be televised live on the California Channel from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon on Tuesday, May 24th. To determine local channel listings, or to view the proceedings via webcast, visit http://www.calchannel.com.

Background: Two women, Elisa and Emily, were in a long-term relationship and each assisted the other in bearing children by using the same anonymous sperm donor. Both held themselves as the children’s parents, and Elisa agreed to financially support the entire family. The two eventually split up. The Court of Appeal held that Elisa had no responsibility to provide child support for the children borne by Emily, even though such responsibility would have been imposed if Elisa were a man.

Am I the only one who finds it sad that someone who equates uncommitted relationships (same sex in this case) to marriage is tasked with defending Proposition 22, which defines marriage in California as being between one man and one woman?

Craig DeLuz

Visit The Home of Uncommon Sense…
www.craigdeluz.com

NAACP thinks Blacks are too stupid to know what marraige is.

Example

Today the California Conference NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Crooked Politicians) made public their October 2004 vote to support Assemblyman Mark Leno’s Same-sex Marriage Bill (AB 19).

The Associated Press quoted the NAACP California Conference President Alice Huffman as saying:

“This issue is really an issue that is not clearly understood by many segments of my community, especially the fundamentalists,” said Huffman, adding that despite lingering opposition among some NAACP members, the organization would testify for Leno’s bill and lobby lawmakers, if necessary.

Ain’t it good to know dat we got impotent folks like Mz. Huffman to tells us unedumacated blak peoples da way it be?

PLEASE!!!!!!

Can Alice Huffman possibly be more condescending? As a Black man who does not support same-sex marriage, I am greatly offended. What is it I don’t understand?

Please enlighten us Ms. Huffman! You clearly believe that we Blacks are too stupid to understand what marriage is. So tell us why an institution that has been the bedrock of society does not deserve to be protected?

The truth is… Black voters do understand the value of Traditional Marriage. That is why we have voted to protect it every chance we have been given.

Craig DeLuz

Visit The Home of Uncommon Sense…
www.craigdeluz.com

AB 205 Foes Make Their Case In California Court Of Appeals

Example

Friday afternoon I had a chance to sit in as attorneys argued the constitutionality of AB 205 before the appeals court here in Sacramento. AB 205 is the legislation authored by Jackie Goldberg (D), which essentially gave almost all of the rights reserved for married couples to domestic partners. This basically created same sex marriage in California; without calling it marriage. (Story Here)

The primary issue being debated was whether or Proposition 22, The Defense of Marriage Act passed in 2000 protected marriage in name only or in fact also included the rights and responsibilities traditionally tied to marriage.

“The voters of the state are entitled to get what they voted on. No more and no less,” said Deputy Attorney General Kathleen Lynch in defense of the domestic partners law. “How would a voter know they were going to vote on more?”

But what was not reported was a key argument presented by Robert Tyler, attorney for the Proposition 22 Legal Defense and Education Fund. He pointed out that California case law already existed supporting their position that marriage is not merely a status and cannot be separated from the rights and responsibilities traditionally tied to it.

When a member of the three judge panel questioned Deputy AG Lynch on this fact, her only response was that the case law was “Outdated”. These are decisions that were made as early as 1981 and as late as 1985. If they believe that rulings that are less than 20 years-old are archaic, it is easy to see why they don’t support traditional marriage. They probably consider it “Outdated” as well, since it does date back to the beginning of time.

It is crucial that we let these judges know that we are tired of them usurping the will of the people by legislating from the bench. JudgeRecall.com is a group of Sacramento voters who are sending just such a message to Sacramento Superior Court Judge Loren McMaster. He is the judge who chose to ignore established case law in his support of AB 205.

If you want to send a message to out of control judges that you have had enough, the recall of Judge McMaster would be a great way to do so.

Craig DeLuz

Visit The Home of Uncommon Sense…
www.craigdeluz.com

The Governor Says “I don’t Believe in Gay Marriage.”

Example

While it probably isn’t the strong moral stand that most of us social conservatives would like to see from the governor, at least he is standing up for the vote of the people.

MSNBC’s Hardball televised an interview with the Governor at Stanford University yesterday where Schwarzenegger declared:

I go by what the people have voted, which was Proposition 22.

He later stated:

I don‘t believe in gay marriage. I believe in partnership, domestic partnership.

This is not exactly where many of us would like to see the Governor, but it represents the political tight rope that many republicans are walking these days. Basically, they support protecting marriage in name only.

When asked about putting a constitutional amendment on the California ballot, the Governor stated:

Well, they did. The people have voted already on that issue. And we can take it back. If people are not happy with that, they can put another initiative…

I agree! If the voters of California want to change the definition of marriage, then they should put it to a vote. But that is not how the same-sex marriage advocates work. They know that everywhere same-sex marriage has been put before the voters, it has failed. This is why they have chosen to got through the liberal court system.

This may force the governor into an interesting quandary. Does he believe more in the will of the people or the will of the courts? Unfortunaely, he did indicate that he would not be willing to buck the California Supreme Court, should they decide to declare laws protecting traditional marriage as unconstitutional.

Whatever the Supreme Court, whatever the Supreme Court decides, that‘s exactly what I will stay with.

It will be interesting to see what happens….

Craig DeLuz

Visit The Home of Uncommon Sense…
www.craigdeluz.com

Keep Your Hands Off Marriage Tour

Example

In Case you are wondering why I haven’t been posting, I have been on a statewide press tour with Campaign for Children and Families against Mark Leno’s AB 19, which would create same sex marriage in California. (Story Here)

Keep in mind that in 2000, California voters approved Prop. 22, which stated that

Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California

Well Leno is attempting to get around the bill by saying that the Proposition only addressed marriages performed outside the state and does not speak to the legalization of same sex marriage within the state.

Assemblyman Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, who introduced the bill, co-authored by Assembly Speaker Fabian Nœ–ez, said it would not amend or modify Prop. 22.

“It amends Section 300 of the California Family Code,” he said in a telephone conversation from his Sacramento office.

Section 300 reads, “Marriage is a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between a man and a woman, to which the consent of the parties capable of making that contract is necessary.”

Leno’s bill would amend that phrase to define marriage as a “personal relation arising out of a civil contract between two persons.”

He said Prop. 22 would not be affected because that refers to marriages contracted outside of the state and does not require California to recognize those marriages.

Leno’s bill will essentially remove a man and a woman from marriage! This is deception of the worst kind!

These Democrats think the voters are stupid! Well…. Are you!!!!!

(Click Pic For More)