In today’s hearing, I will be watching for the Marriage Redefiners to try to distinguish their case. That is, will they try to come up with some argument that distinguishes the Proponents of Prop 8 from Proponents of other potential ballot initiatives. If they make no attempt to do that, we might conclude that they don’t care whether they destroy the initiative process. They just want what they want, and they don’t care about collateral damage.
On the other hand, if they do make an effort to limit the impact of their request to Prop 8 and only Prop 8, that would at least show some good faith on their part.
I will be watching.
I have been told by a veteran of these hearings that I may be asked to give up my electronics before entering the courtroom. In that case, I will have to file my posts later. The hearing begins at 10 AM Pacific Time, and will probably run through noon.
Watch this space….
I am in San Francisco today, observing the Prop 8 hearing on behalf of NOM. The issue in today’s hearing is standing: who has standing to defend Prop 8 in court against legal attacks.
This issue is significant for several reasons. First, the State of CA has the responsibility of defending its laws in court. That’s right: Proposition 8 is a duly enacted law of the State of CA. The people passed this initiative in a highly visible election that was not even a close call, 51% to 49%, approximately the same percentage of the vote that elected Barack Obama President of the United States.
Second, the elected officials charged with this duty, the Attorney General and the Governor, have consistently refused to perform their constitutional duty. They only enforce the parts of the law they like, I guess. Read more…
Proposition 8′s sponsors will be in court Monday morning to argue whether Judge Walker’s decision to overturn Prop 8 should be vacated on the basis that the long term same-sex relationship he is involved in (and was involved in at the time of the Prop 8 trial, but failed to disclose) constitutes a conflict of interest.
If you want to follow the hearing, and don’t mind going to the website of one of Prop 8′s opponents to do so, then you can find live updates at http://www.afer.org/june13 starting at 9:00am.
by Carolyn Moynihan
Special note: Prof. Brad Wilcox will be a speaker at this summer’s “It Takes a Family” Conference sponsored by the Ruth Institute.
In the realm of parenthood today nothing can be taken for granted — not even that a mother and father are the best thing for children, at least according to certain elites. Read more…
Charlie Butts – OneNewsNow -
Pressure from homosexual activist groups has compelled the head of the 2012 U.S. Olympic gymnastics team to quit.
Two-time gymnastics gold medal winner Peter Vidmar has resigned upon receiving harsh criticism from homosexual and lesbian athletes and activists, who complained that he had donated $2,000 to promote California’s Proposition 8, which defines marriage as between one man and one woman. Read more…
The on-going drama of Prop 8. The opponents of Prop 8 are willing to gut the state’s voter initiative process in order to defend the same sex “marriage” decision imposed on the state by the Supreme Court back in 2008. Let’s see: the State Supreme Court overturned a citizens’ legislative initiative and declared the male/female requirement for marriage to be unconstitutional. So, the people used the initiative process and passed a constitutional amendment. The purpose of the initiative process is to allow the citizens some redress against the government, when they believe the govt is out of control.
Now, the opponents of Prop 8 challenge the amendment in court. The Powers That Be in the State of CA refuse to defend Prop 8 in court. The Attorney General, herself a charter member of The Powers That Be, has declared that the proponents of the initiative do not have standing to defend Prop 8 in court. By this reasoning, all the Powers That Be have to do is to lodge a challenge to an initiative and the initiative becomes void because no one has the right to defend it. By my reckoning, that pretty much guts the initiative process. Let’s look at the AG’s reasoning: Read more…
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — The sponsors of California’s same-sex marriage ban said Monday that the recent disclosure by the federal judge who struck down Proposition 8 that he is in a long-term relationship with another man has given them new grounds to have his historic ruling overturned.
Lawyers for the ban’s backers filed a motion in San Francisco’s U.S. District Court, arguing that Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker should have removed himself from the case or at least disclosed his relationship status because his “impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” Read more…
WASHINGTON – The 9th Circuit Court today announced it would not lift its stay on Judge Vaughn Walker’s decision overturning Proposition 8. The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) applauded the decision.
“This is good news for the people of California–and congratulations to the Dream Team of David Boies and Ted Olson for continuing their impressive streak of losses in actions not in Judge Walker’s courtroom,” said Brian Brown, president of NOM. Read more…
When the so-called ‘justices’ of the California Supreme Court, in their ruling overturning Proposition 22, commanded the State to recognize same-sex ‘marriages’ immediately – in the face of warnings that those ‘marriages’ would be be the source of enormous legal confusion when Proposition 8 passed – it was a case of the judiciary attempting to deny the people their right to self-rule (Proposition 22 passed by 61%) and it was a very transparent attempt to influence the outcome of Proposition 8, and it was an obvious attempt to make the will of the people utterly irrelevant anyway by making same-sex so-called ‘marriage’ a fait accompli irrespective of any constitutional requirements. Read more…
From Dictionary.com:
hy·poc·ri·sy
[hi-pok-ruh-see]
–noun, plural -sies.
1. a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess.
2. a pretense of having some desirable or publicly approved attitude.
3. an act or instance of hypocrisy. Read more…
One of my earlier observations has dropped out of the conversation: the pro-marriage effort is an inter-faith, multi-racial coalition. If you think of Jesse Jackson’s Rainbow Coalition, he was trying to emphasize the ethnic diversity of his followers. We supporters of Prop 8 can make the same claim: we had the overwhelming support of African Americans and Hispanics as well as traditional believers from all the major religious groups.
This was the point I made to a group of citizens at a church meeting in Northern California the evening of the Prop 8 trial. This was a meeting of people concerned about some of the activities and decisions of their local school board. When I looked out into the audience, I saw Hispanics and Asians and Anglos gathered at an African American church to take responsibility for what was happening in their community. I pointed out that we were the largest grassroots effort in history. We had over 70,000 individual donors and 100,000 volunteers. When we went to file our donor reports with the CA Secretary of State, our report crashed their computer! My new friends in Northern California appreciated the reminder that the Prop 8 coalition was and continues to be a winning coalition.
I think a lot of the same sex marriage advocates are Leftists who resent the fact that they can no longer count on the Rainbow Coalition that has worked well for them in the past. You might have better luck if you actually listened to them, instead of finding reasons to dismiss them and their views.
Just a thought.
December 16th, 2010
Betsy
Apparently Apple Computers “got the memo” that it is “OK” to discriminate against Christians. Leading that charge is their Chairman/CEO Steve Jobs. Despite one of the highest positive ratings available (4+), Apple pulled an app developed by the Manhattan Declaration—a group of 500,000 Christians who have publicly declared their support for traditional marriage, life and religious liberty—from their iTunes store.
CLICK HERE TO WATCH THE AD Read more…
December 15th, 2010
Betsy
December 15th, 2010
Betsy
by Becky Yeh
Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse of the San Diego-based Ruth Institute rightly argues that the rainbow is a sign of God’s covenant with man, and she says proponents of Proposition 8 – California’s measure that passed in 2008 to define marriage as between a man and a woman — are the original “rainbow coalition.” Read more…
OK, quick show of hands: During the Proposition 8 campaign, how many of you ridiculed those commercials that suggested THIS would happen if Prop 8 didn’t pass?
Well, I guess you were half right. It’s happening anyway.
Dr J was up in San Francisco earlier this week for the Prop 8 trial in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. In addition to the interviews we’ve already posted, she also spoke with Austin Nimocks and Jordan Lorence (both of these are available on our podcast page under Prop 8). There’s also a pre-trial interview with Todd Wilken of Issues, Etc; more are on the way.
by Maggie Gallagher
For Charles Cooper, chief litigator for Proposition 8, the ultimate vindication will come when five U.S. Supreme Court justices overturn U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker’s decision. Judge Walker is the San Francisco judge who took it upon himself to rule that 7 million Californians had no right to vote for Prop 8 — gay marriage, he ruled, is required by the U.S. Constitution. Read more…
Loading ...
