Monday, March 2, 2009

California Supreme Court Prop 8 Oral Arguments

We the People
Prop 8 hearing is this Thursday, March 5th, 9am in San Francisco. Supreme Court Prop 8 Oral Arguments can also be viewed online at The California Channel, and their list of television carriers can be found here. Join this Facebook event to learn more about how to rally for marriage locally.

As per the revision v. amendment argument, my personal thoughts are that the Equal Protection Clause has not been violated in the least. Proposition 8 does not represent a “substantial change to the underlying principles of the constitution.” Nor does it single out one particular group of people for discrimination; rather, “Proposition 8, which supports marriage for all legal adults regardless of distinction, grants access to the institution of marriage for all citizens equally” (Beetle Blogger). It is not just a rule excluding homosexuals. Whether we have homosexual tendencies, heterosexual tendencies, bisexual tendencies, incestuous tendencies, polygamous tendencies, polyamorous tendencies, or pedophiliac tendencies, this amendment applies to us all equally; we are equally mandated, equally addressed, and equally protected whether we recognize and appreciate that protection or not. Marriage is between one man and one woman. Marriage is regulated for the well-being of children and the preservation of society. And contrary to popular, selfish thought these days, children’s rights do indeed come before adult preferences, urges, and attractions.

Remember this segment, also known as the Preamble, from the Constitution of the United States of America? I’ve added my own clarifying bit here:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare [NOT THE MINORITY SEXUAL BEHAVIORS], and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity [YES, WE DO HAVE A DUTY TO PROTECT OUR CHILDREN], do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

And embedded in the California State Constitution, also established by the people, is the following preservation:

“All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for their protection, security, and benefit, and they have the right to alter or reform it when the public good may require.”

Here is another take on this matter featuring Andrew Pugno’s response to Shannon Minter as taken from an article in the Sacramento Bee:

"This is now about whether a majority can take away an inalienable right from one group of Californians," Minter said. "If the court were to say it's OK … then no one's rights would mean very much."… Folsom attorney Andrew Pugno, disagreed with Minter's contention that Proposition 8 should never have been on the ballot.

"Minority rights exist only because the majority decided to protect them by adopting a constitution," Pugno said. "If the court misinterprets those rights, it's the people's job to correct that by clarifying the constitution."

Beetle Blogger has a great response to homosexual activist, Senator Leno, discussing this same issue as well. Read it here.

What chaps my hide is that I have voted, and so have seven million other California citizens. And we didn’t just vote. We worked hard, we campaigned, we educated, we called, we walked, we waved, we sacrificed. And now all that effort is balancing on a judicial tightrope. And you know what? I don’t care. I just care that marriage remains protected, that children remain protected, and that society remains protected from chaos, democratic usurpation, improper and misguided interpretation of the Constitution, and redefinition. It seems that ALL THREE branches of government here in California have gone AWOL and even when the people step in to establish guidelines through a democratic process, our AWOL “leaders” are trying desperately to supplant us. If they succeed, California may as well secede from the United States of America because they will no longer be represented democratically. What a terrible shame that would be. Time to take back California, people.

On a parting note, I share a quote from an impassioned Matt Barber, following the Supreme Court decision that struck down Proposition 22 on May 15th, 2008:

"The California Supreme Court has engaged in the worst kind of judicial activism today, abandoning its role as an objective interpreter of the law and instead legislating from the bench," said Matt Barber, policy director for cultural issues for the group Concerned Women for America, in a written statement.

"So-called 'same-sex' marriage is counterfeit marriage. Marriage is, and has always been, between a man and a woman. We know that it's in the best interest of children to be raised with a mother and a father. To use children as guinea pigs in radical San Francisco-style social experimentation is deplorable."

How will you show your support for and defense of Prop 8, marriage, and your vote this Thursday, March 5th, 2009?



thepomegranateapple said...

great post perla

Michael Ejercito said...

The precedent in the amendment v. revision issue supports the argument that Proposition 8 is a lawful amendment.

In People v. Anderson , the California Supreme Court ruled that "that capital punishment is both cruel and unusual as those terms are defined under article I, section 6, of the California Constitution, and that therefore death may not be exacted as punishment for crime in this state." n that same decision, it reiterated that "The cruel or unusual punishment clause of the California Constitution, like other provisions of the Declaration of Rights, operates to restrain legislative and executive action and to protect fundamental individual and minority rights against encroachment by the majority." Proposition 17 was passed by the voters to constitutionalize the death penalty, and it was upheld as a lawful amendment in People v. Frierson .

In In Re Lance W., the Supreme Court noted that [t]he people could by amendment of the Constitution repeal section 13 of article I [protecting against unreasonable searches and seizures] in its entirety." This would eliminate state protection of the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. (Of course, such an amendment would have no effect on similar federal protections.)

Pearl said...

Michael Ejercito!

I just realized that I never thanked you for dropping these comments by my blog. I appreciate you imparting your "precedent" wisdom with the rest of us. That first, People v. Anderson, is a gem since the supreme court was claiming they were protecting "minority rights against encroachment by the majority" just as homosexual activists claim today. And yet, when Proposition 17 was passed by the people, legalizing the death penalty, the supreme court upheld the will of the people and their right to amend their own Constitution. This is key.

Related Posts with Thumbnails