Topic: Constitutional Issues
How to Recall a California Supreme Court Justice The Constitution of California gives the right and responsibly for government squarely on its citizens. The simple elegance of its recall process makes plain that the authority and duty to control the states judiciary resides with the people.by Paul Benedict
(libertarian)
Sunday, November 9, 2008
Information is power if power has already been granted to you. Indeed, in California great political authority has already been granted to its citizens. That power is our history and our legacy, for the California Constitution in Article 2 Section 1 reads:
"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."
The voters of California have recently reformed their state by way of a ballot initiative called Proposition 8. This was a reformation because marriage in California (and in all the world) has always been between a man and a woman. Only in recent months did our justices deem it fit to alter our state laws and our constitution. Because the justices are sworn to uphold the constitution, not alter it, they should be recalled for the failure to discharge their duties. The people of California have also been granted this right. It is within our authority as states Article 2 Section 13: "Recall is the power of the electors to remove an elective officer," and, as the constitutional framers saw fit and in California Supreme Court Justices are elected, not appointed; Article 2 Section 16a:
"Judges of the Supreme Court shall be elected at large and judges of courts of appeal shall be elected in their districts at general elections at the same time and places as the Governor. Their terms are 12 years beginning the Monday after January 1 following their election"
Because in California Supreme Court Justices are not appointed as they are under the federal constitution, but elected, they are subject to recall by the electorate, and rightly so.
The constitutional framers made the manner of recall very simple. The recall process has two parts. Both of these parts are stated plainly in Article 2 Section 14a. The first is:
"Recall of a state officer is initiated by delivering to the Secretary of State a petition alleging reason for recall. Sufficiency of reason is not reviewable."
The petition to remove these elected officials is not "reviewable." That means that the voters could say, "We the people of California petition for the removal of these four Supreme Court Justices because they are dumb dumb heads, and we don't like them any more." Such a claim could not be rejected on legal grounds; however, such simplicity might not be considered overly persuasive either. Nonetheless, the point is that the California Constitution makes this matter simple because its intent is that the people of California, not its lawyers or its judges, define the nature and scope of our laws.
Those who choose to circulate a petition to recall each of these four judges might contemplate a petition that says:
"We the people of California, petition for the recall of Chief Justice Ronald M. George, Associate Justice Joyce L. Kennard, Associate Justice Kathryn M. Werdegar, and Associate Justice Carlos R. Moreno for the following reasons:
Unless one is of an unsound mind, seeks personal aggrandizement, or sets himself above the body of laws and the constitution he has taken an oath to uphold, the historic documents surrounding the constitution and the historic contexts of the documents surrounding the family law of California cannot be construed to include homosexuality as a suspect category in civil right laws: these are plainly limited to race, religion and gender.
The historic documents of California and the body of documentation surrounding California can not be held to imply or refer to a right for same sex couples to pretend to marriage by law, and any such conclusion is evidence of an unsound mind, self seeking, or a judicial hubris that pretends to be above the body of laws embodied in the constitution of California he swore to uphold.
In altering the Constitution of California and the body of laws it embodies, this jurist has undermined the civil right to marry for all couples; he has reduced marriage to a mere legal contract defined by states rather than upholding the court's legitimate responsibility to recognize the union of a man and a woman. This is an ancient contract between two people based on exalting that which nature and the God of nature has set within the heart of all people everywhere without regard to race, religion or gender. This fundamental joining, like the right to free speech, like the right to worship in accordance with our conscience, like the right to free movement and like the right to defend oneself against tyrants and any who would threaten life and property, exists prior to governments and any government that refuses to recognize such rights is illegitimate.
In altering the Constitution of California and the body of laws it embodies, these jurists have undermined civil society, civil conversation, and the peace of this great state, for we have had untold expenditures of time and money resulting only in increased acrimony and civil unrest. This is entirely the fault of this Court. Rather than undermining the documents and laws of this land designed for the express purpose of maintaining civil discourse, a democratic union and the peace of this people, this court could have urged the plaintiffs in "re Marriages" to utilize the ballot initiatives to democratically amend our State's Constitution. Instead, this court has purposely misrepresented the documents of our state and deceived many of its unwitting populace into feeling that it has "rights" it never received in accordance with the democratic principles of our society.
The ruling of this court expresses an explicit intent to order state representatives to deceive others by applying the historic name and honor of the institution of "marriage" on unions that have no history at all. This legislated fraud would have constituted a tyranny and would have affected young children of every race, religion and gender from the tender ages in which they enter our public school system.
Article 2 Section 14a also sets out the second condition for demanding the recall of its elected judges: "Proponents (of the recall) have 160 days to file signed petitions." Article 2 Section 14b and c contains the instructions on filing the petition:
"A petition to recall a statewide officer must be signed by electors equal in number to 12 percent of the last vote for the office, with signatures from each of 5 counties equal in number to 1 percent of the last vote for the office in the county. Signatures to recall Senators, members of the Assembly, members of the Board of Equalization, and judges of courts of appeal and trial courts must equal in number 20 percent of the last vote for the office. (b) The Secretary of State shall maintain a continuous count of the signatures certified to that office."
California is one of the most liberal states in These United States of America in the oldest and truest meaning of that word. California is not liberal because has relativism, high taxes, deficit spending and a "nanny government" written into its constitution. California is proudly one of the most liberal states in the Union because, rather than specifying that the authority and responsibility for governance resides primarily in the representatives of the people, it gives the authority and responsibility for governance to the people in some of the most direct and practical ways ever devised. Californians ought to prize the authority its citizens have been granted, but with this greater authority comes greater responsibility. Californians have a responsibility, a duty, to recall these judges. This matter has not been left to lawyers, other judges, or to elected representative. They do not, therefore, have the responsibility to recall these judges. Californians, however, do. It is therefore, the people of California who are responsible for the harm these judges have done and will do if they do not act together swiftly and decisively to recall them.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 31 thumbs so far
The views expressed in this
article are those of Paul Benedict only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Paul Benedict is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
I am not a bible expert but my understanding of the old testament is that a character by the name of Abraham became the founder of monotheism (the belief that there is only one god). As such Abraham is revered by the Jewish, Christian and Muslim faiths. As such, Abraham's marital situation is probably the best guide as to what God's intentions were and as such Abraham had two wives (Sarah, Hagar) at the same time. So much for same "ancient contract between two people based on exalting that which nature and the God of nature has set within the heart of all people everywhere".
With out dragging this on and on there is a second character by the name of Jacob that even married two sisters Leah and Rachel and kept them both.
In short your whole premises is built upon an incorrect (not to mention bigoted assumption). While you are at it why don't you read the California Supreme Court Decision and the California Constitution and comment about why the constitutional guarantee of equal protection under the law don't apply well equally!
Government should not be in the marraige business. That is for churches. No special incentives or treatment should be proffered by the government for married people. Marraige outside of the church should be contract law. If men want to engage in some sort of union, draw up a contract. If I, man forbid, wanted to have three wives, draw it up in a contract.
I understand why the government believes in must encourage marraige and families, but that's not its place.
Posted By: Paul Benedict
Date: 2008-11-10 17:53:41
B.W.,
I see you can appreciate freedom. However, rogue Supreme Court Jurists that enjoy their personal liberties at our expense are very dangerous. They don't agree with your position at all. They took liberties away from people by non democratic judicial fiat.
I argue that it is plain that the California Supremes extended extensively the role of government in out lives (they did not limit it) by insisting that state employees lie about same sex couples being married. Even your polygamous definition included the essence of what marriage is in the joining of a man and a woman. If governments can start ordering its citizens to lie, we are in an Orwellian outer darkness.
Please check out my article "Dehumanizing Marriage" for my view about governments role in recording and recognizing marriage as a fundamental liberty. I'm not sure it will convince pure anarchist libertarians of the radical '60's style; however, a more limited and more responsive government might be more in the direction, at least, of some of your ideals.
These rouge supreme court justices looked at a law and compared it to the requirements of the California constitution and found the law even with majority support violated the constitution. they had two choices ignore their duties or declair the law viod. I contend if they had ignored the constitution then they would be rouge but they didn't and so arn't.
The question is why you are trying to take away liberties from others. What it souynds like to me is that you think your religious freedom should include dicsrimination against others. If that is what we have to sacrifice then good!
By the way Paul, have you looked into that ancient contract yet? Seems like god thinks marriage is more then just two? May be three maybe a half dozen?
Posted By: Paul Benedict
Date: 2008-11-10 19:47:35
They altered the constitution. They added homosexuality, purposely, to the suspect classes in civil rights such as race, religion, and gender. The constitutional way to do this is with an amendment such as Prop. 8. That they altered the constitution they swore to uphold despite the express will of the people only adds to their personal hubris and despotism.
We certainly can have different views about this but the correct forum for our civil discourse is via the contracts our republic has approved.Don't tell me you are serious with your take on polygamy in the Bible? Yes, there was polygamy in the Bible. At least they knew that a marriage was between a man and a woman. The notion that same sex couples are married is more laughable than Caligula naming his horse as Incitatus Consul of Rome. Some said he was crazy, but he might just have been joking. I’m not sure what these justices will plead in the court of history.
By the way, for the record, Adam and Eve are the example of God's standard for marriage. It is this couple that the Lord referred to in the gospels when he gave instructions about marriage. Jacob, a.k.a., Israel, never wanted to marry Leah, but he was trapped into a commitment that he kept because his word was his bond.There seems to have been polygamy in the early church as well (especially among converts to Christianity); however, the Apostle Paul set marriage for a leader in the church as monogamous.
They did not alter the constitution which you have not taken the time to read. For your
benefit I have included the relevent portion. No where does it restrict equal rights to
race, religion or ethinic origion. Please try to do a little, a smiggin of research before you publish.
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
SEC. 7. (a) A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws; provided, that nothing contained herein or elsewhere in this Constitution imposes upon the State of California or any public entity, board, or official any obligations or responsibilities which exceed those imposed by the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution with respect to the use of pupil school assignment or pupil transportation. In enforcing this subdivision or any other provision of this Constitution, no court of this State may impose upon the State of California or any public entity, board, or official any obligation or responsibility with respect to the use of pupil school assignment or pupil transportation, (1) except to remedy a specific violation by such party that would also constitute a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution, and (2) unless a federal court would be permitted under federal decisional law to impose that obligation or responsibility upon such party to remedy the specific violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution. Except as may be precluded by the Constitution of the United States, every existing judgment, decree, writ, or other order of a court of this State, whenever rendered, which includes provisions regarding pupil school assignment or pupil transportation, or which requires a plan including any such provisions shall, upon application to a court having jurisdiction by any interested person, be modified to conform to the provisions of this subdivision as amended, as applied to the facts which exist at the time of such modification. In all actions or proceedings arising under or seeking application of the amendments to this subdivision proposed by the Legislature at its 1979-80 Regular Session, all courts, wherein such actions or proceedings are or may hereafter be pending, shall give such actions or proceedings first precedence over all other civil actions therein.
Nothing herein shall prohibit the governing board of a school district from voluntarily continuing or commencing a school integration plan after the effective date of this subdivision as amended. In amending this subdivision, the Legislature and people of the State of California find and declare that this amendment is necessary to serve compelling public interests, including those of making the most effective use of the limited financial resources now and prospectively available to support public education, maximizing the educational opportunities and protecting the health and safety of all public school pupils, enhancing the ability of parents to participate in the educational process, preserving harmony and tranquility in this State and its public schools, preventing the waste of scarce fuel resources, and protecting the environment. (b) A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens. Privileges or immunities granted by the Legislature may be altered or revoked.
Where in the old testimant does it state that Adam and Eve are God's "standard for marriage"? They being the same pair that God ran out of the garden. They whose children had to engage in incest inorder to continue the human race.
By the way my point on polygamy is to dispute the concept that these silly groups known as churchars have taken that they understand god's will. Or as I told my business partner... here let me get you a rock so that when you next see a homosexual you are ready to follow Christ's Teachings and stone them.
I contend, Paul, you are no more a student of Christ then you are of the California Constitution. If you where you would have less hate within your heart and more compassion!
Posted By: Paul Benedict
Date: 2008-11-10 22:36:56
I think I mentioned the Christian lord pointed out Adam and Eve as the standard. My reading isn't too bad.
One of the subpoints in this article is that the California judges had no right to alter the constitution no matter how noble one may (or may not) think there motives are. The correct way to alter the constitution is in a constitutional manner. You may be forgiven for reading things into the law that do not exist, but Supreme Court judges undermine our civil discourse when they do.
I have nothing against homosexuals. If we followed Old Testament law, we'd all be dead. Nor is marriage a definition unique to religion or to atheists. It is a universally understood concept. Why lie? Why demand that others lie? I do have an issue with dishonesty in political office.
Posted By: Paul Benedict
Date: 2008-11-10 22:44:54
Hi Steve,
The portion of the Cal constitution you quote means, in ordinary speak, that no one can tee-off on others for any reason. That's not what a "suspect class" is all about. That's a longer study. It actually has to do with affirmative action cases.
California law does contain certain provisions that recognize homosexuality as a suspect class, but its constitution does not have such language. The court, in its ruling, took recent law (passed by our state legislature largely to avoid the issues in Massachusetts) and generalized this to the authority of a constitutional amendment.
The court actually knows the difference. Judge George knows what he did.
As you are very well aware of this Republic also condoned slavery until 1863. Woman were not allowed to vote until 1920. Inter-racial marriages was not a protected right until 1967 when the United States Supreme Court Ruled in Loving V. Virginia.
Look at that history every 50 to 60 years we move more towards equality and civil rights. Well Mr Jim Crow, prop 22 had over60 % support, prop 8 had only 52.5% the tide of liberty is comming and it maybe this is the last hurah of the anti-gay bigets or it might take 10 more years but you have lost.
As we Libertarian like to state your right to swing your fist stops before you hit my nose. In your house if you want to declare a marriage to be only between a man and a woman have at it. But when you try and impose additional taxation on others backed by your deffenition then your fist has hit some one else.
What State Law is allowed to overide the State Constitution? None Paul None. Show me where in the California Constitution that liberties are limited to race, religion and gender. I read Article 1 section 7 to state "A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws"
You are advocating that these justices who took an outh to up hold the California Constitution should ignore the very document they swore to uphold.
I contend, that their honor forces them to rule under the constitution just as they did and that even under the threat of recall they should honor the state constitution.
Posted By: Paul Benedict
Date: 2008-11-10 23:12:51
Hi Steve, The taxation is a red herring. That is not the issue in California at all. Just register as a "domestic partner" with your roommate and you're set. No questions asked.I don't mind the open debate. I would disagree as articulately as I can that homosexuality is not a race, a religion, or a gender, hence, not a civil rights issue (That does not mean that I object to homosexuality. I only object to the massive dishonesty involved in this silliness). Nonetheless, if laws and constitutions are to change, the change must be constitutional. Those in favor of "gay marriage" cannot become the unwitting Nazi shock troops of a grasping tyranny of the judiciary. These judges have harmed the gay rights movement all but irrevocably. Meanwhile, the gay rights folks have spent countless time, effort, heart, tears and money in an effort to undermine the rule of law. Why? Because the courts have manipulated your movement. Their power is the issue. That’s what they want. The ordinary Joe actually is a pretty tolerant person. They are getting a little riled about now. They don’t like folks trying to get intolerant, arrogant judges to order them to lie to their children.For straight and homosexuals alike our laws are our best protection against the worst in society, the power hungry. Our laws are exemplary. In California we have been granted the duty and responsibility to protect those laws. You should help. Do the gay agenda thing the right way, the legal and constitutional
The California Constitution specificaly protects our rights. You have claimed that these protections are limited to race, religion and gender. But you have not provided any proof.
You want to recall the california justices who ruled on what the state constitutoin reads. And now you use the words "nazi storm troopers". Sir, Must I remind you that the nazi's not only killed people because of their religion (the jews), not only becaus of their race (jews and jypsies) not only the mentaly disturbed but they also killed the homo sexuals.
Well you pro prop 8 supports should know all about red hearings in that you tied the education system (again ignoring state law to you position). When it comes to Taxes, the inheritance tax is a real issue. Here in California you can say that state taxes arn't afected but state taxes are small compared to federal taxes. It is important that California take a stand either for fairness under federal tax laws for domestic partners or for the complet disacociation of marriage from the federal tax laws.
Posted By: Paul Benedict
Date: 2008-11-11 10:23:59
Hi Steve,
I see I'm not making friends and influencing people in some quarters! However, I do think you misunderstand me... Perhaps not.
Anyhow, my position is that equal protection under the law applies to all. Secondarily, as concerning affirmative action "suspect" classes, homosexuality is not included. There is not a "quota" for gay men and women on USC campuses. I would argue that this is correct. Homosexuality is not a race, gender or a religion. I would further argue that the constitutional way to change this is by a constititutional amendment.
The California constitution has had two massive revisions. In its history it has included many strange things. In its current state it offers greater freedom to the people than does the federal constitution. I believe that is awesome. If others don’t like that, the constitution leaves it to the people to rewrite it and change it again.
It is perhaps my fault that you misunderstood the Nazi statement. Although one of the hall marks of the gay agenda has been a relentless attack on religion as a whole and singularly (as with the Mormons), when I spoke of the Nazi's I did not mean the concentration camp era. The Nazi's, early in Hitler's rise to power, used lawlessness and intimidation to undermine the democratic process. This led to Hitler's term as Chancellor of Germany.
The educational issue was not a red herring in the "Yes" on "Prop. 8" campaign. I thought the ads that pointed out that the superintendent of schools who said it was a red herring actually contradicted himself on his own website.
Here is the link I used throughout the discussion to indicate that only one side was being completely honest about the effects of Proposition 8: [link edited for length]
Some people take the position that open homosexuality in the educational process is important for young students. That is at least an honest position. The “no” on Prop. 8 advertisements were parsing words. For instance, the ruling of the California Supreme Court has, as I have alluded to, far reaching implications for a great many state institutions. Though the vote “yes” was for marriage between a man and a woman, it also restored our laws and our constitutions to their previous state. Though “yes” was about marriage, “no” was about teaching same sex marriage to little kids. I’m not sure if you mean to parse words too. I don’t think you do.
Anyhow, sorry for any misunderstandings. I also think the education issue points up an important difference between many on the issue of homosexuality. Many are willing to tolerate homosexuals but many do not want to teach their children that homosexuality is an excellent life style. If you don't want to teach your children that homosexuality is good for them, then you should take a stand when asked. There is no reason to lie about one's views just to make others feel good.
Finally, I would seek to persuade you that this conversation, while a bit animated, is good. Such discussions and ballot amendments that might follow are the correct way to amend the constitution of California. The Supreme Court took the decision making out of the hands of the people in a two-fold manner. They altered the constitution by reading things that it did not say into it, changing our laws. Secondly, they overturned a law passed by the direct will of the people. Both times they did this on purpose, saying, or implying, that like some others in California, that the people of California aren't good enough to have such rights. We are too insensitive. I disagree. The framers of the California Constitution very much disagree. All in California who disagree with this dangerous notion of privileged moral superiority, all in California who do not want their constitutional rights, privileges, and responsibilities undermined must hold these Supreme Court jurists accountable.
First if you are not familiar with Godwin's law you should get familiar. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwins_law
Second, a major point of contention is does the equal protection clause of the California Constitution apply to all people, in other words can a law which restricts the rights and privilages of one group of people be legal. The CA supreme court said no. In my reading of the California constitutionI think it is not. For example if it was legal then a law which reads that people with blond hair can use the commuter lanes any time of day wouldalso be legal. In fact one of the alternative opinions stated in the decsision that one option left for the anti-gay marriage proponents would be to ratify the constitution.
Third, on education. In Section 51933 of the California Education Code it states that
(7) Instruction and materials shall teach respect for marriage and committed relationships."
The prop prop 8 side has lied about the law requiring the teaching of marriage. The code requires that if a school teaches comprehensive sexual health and education that it also teach respect for marriage and committed relationships. Also, the California Education Code has strict protection of parental rights to withdraw their child from having them instructed in the subject of sexual health and education.
51937. It is the intent of the Legislature to encourage pupils to communicate with their parents or guardians about human sexuality and HIV/AIDS and to respect the rights of parents or guardians to supervise their children's education on these subjects. The Legislature intends to create a streamlined process to make it easier for parents and guardians to review materials and evaluation tools related to comprehensive sexual health education and HIV/AIDS prevention education, and, if they wish, to excuse their children from participation in all or part of that instruction or evaluation. The Legislature recognizes that while parents and guardians overwhelmingly support medically accurate, comprehensive sex education, parents and guardians have the ultimate responsibility for imparting values regarding human sexuality to their children.
51938. A parent or guardian of a pupil has the right to excuse their child from all or part of comprehensive sexual health education, HIV/AIDS prevention education, and assessments related to that education, as follows: (a) At the beginning of each school year, or, for a pupil who enrolls in a school after the beginning of the school year, at the time of that pupil's enrollment, each school district shall notify the parent or guardian of each pupil about instruction in comprehensive sexual health education and HIV/AIDS prevention education and research on pupil health behaviors and risks planned for the coming year. The notice shall do all of the following: (1) Advise the parent or guardian that written and audiovisual educational materials used in comprehensive sexual health education and HIV/AIDS prevention education are available for inspection. (2) Advise the parent or guardian whether the comprehensive sexual health education or HIV/AIDS prevention education will be taught by school district personnel or by outside consultants. A school district may provide comprehensive sexual health education or HIV/AIDS prevention education, to be taught by outside consultants, and may hold an assembly to deliver comprehensive sexual health education or HIV/AIDS prevention education by guest speakers, but if it elects to provide comprehensive sexual health education or HIV/AIDS prevention education in either of these manners, the notice shall include the date of the instruction, the name of the organization or affiliation of each guest speaker, and information stating the right of the parent or guardian to request a copy of this section, Section 51933, and Section 51934. If arrangements for this instruction are made after the beginning of the school year, notice shall be made by mail or another commonly used method of notification, no fewer than 14 days before the instruction is delivered. (3) Include information explaining the parent's or guardian's right to request a copy of this chapter. (4) Advise the parent or guardian that the parent or guardian may request in writing that his or her child not receive comprehensive sexual health education or HIV/AIDS prevention education. (b) Notwithstanding Section 51513, anonymous, voluntary, and confidential research and evaluation tools to measure pupils' health behaviors and risks, including tests, questionnaires, and surveys containing age-appropriate questions about the pupil's attitudes concerning or practices relating to sex may be administered to any pupil in grades 7 to 12, inclusive, if the parent or guardian is notified in writing that this test, questionnaire, or survey is to be administered and the pupil's parent or guardian is given the opportunity to review the test, questionnaire, or survey and to request in writing that his or her child not participate. (c) The use of outside consultants or guest speakers as described in paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) is within the discretion of the school district.
51939. (a) A pupil may not attend any class in comprehensive sexual education or HIV/AIDS prevention education, or participate in any anonymous, voluntary, and confidential test, questionnaire, or survey on pupil health behaviors and risks, if the school has received a written request from the pupil's parent or guardian excusing the pupil from participation. (b) A pupil may not be subject to disciplinary action, academic penalty, or other sanction if the pupil's parent or guardian declines to permit the pupil to receive comprehensive sexual health education or HIV/AIDS prevention education or to participate in anonymous, voluntary, and confidential tests, questionnaires, or surveys on pupil health behaviors and risks. (c) While comprehensive sexual health education, HIV/AIDS prevention education, or anonymous, voluntary, and confidential test, questionnaire, or survey on pupil health behaviors and risks is being administered, an alternative educational activity shall be made available to pupils whose parents or guardians have requested that they not receive the instruction or participate in the test, questionnaire, or survey.
Posted By: Paul Benedict
Date: 2008-11-12 07:35:33
Cute link to Godwin's law. I can't say I follow your argument on the equal protection clause. What did you think of the Gay Agenda thing I linked to above on the education issue?
Using your argument, Brunetts aren't a proctected class and therefor if the government wan'ts to grant a privlage to blonds that the state denies to brunetts it can do so.
The SF Gay Pride Flyer. 1) San fransico voted 75% against Prop 8. Looks like this flyer if true is an example of a local school district setting an adgenda to match the needs and desires of its population. It probably wouldn't work in your communittee or in mine. 2) State law gives parents the authority to forbide the instruction to your child and instructs the schools that your child not be given alternative activites instead.
51939. (a) A pupil may not attend any class in comprehensive sexual education or HIV/AIDS prevention education, or participate in any anonymous, voluntary, and confidential test, questionnaire, or survey on pupil health behaviors and risks, if the school has received a written request from the pupil's parent or guardian excusing the pupil from participation. (b) A pupil may not be subject to disciplinary action, academic penalty, or other sanction if the pupil's parent or guardian declines to permit the pupil to receive comprehensive sexual health education or HIV/AIDS prevention education or to participate in anonymous, voluntary, and confidential tests, questionnaires, or surveys on pupil health behaviors and risks. (c) While comprehensive sexual health education, HIV/AIDS prevention education, or anonymous, voluntary, and confidential test, questionnaire, or survey on pupil health behaviors and risks is being administered, an alternative educational activity shall be made available to pupils whose parents or guardians have requested that they not receive the instruction or participate in the test, questionnaire, or survey.
One key idea of Libertarianism is to move controll of the schools back to the local governments. So just as it would be acceptable for the SF school
district to impose its curiculum upon Sacremento it is also not ok for Sacramento to impose its curiculum on San Francisco.
Churches are currently asking for rights and priveledges that they wish to deny to others.
I see this as a civil rights issue; however, people of "faith" do not. They see this as a choice issue, and are arguing that gays should not have rights based on a "choice" of lifestyle; well isn't religion a choice as well? And as such, why should religious institutions enjoy any protections or rights that the same institutions would not allow another group to have?
Don't these same religious institutions terrorize abortion and family planning clinics all over the U.S.? Oh but thats different than the Homosexual community holding peaceful protests.
Theres another issue here regarding religion, what about those of us whose religious beliefs allow for Homosexual marriage? Is one religion now granted more rights than another? Regardless of what your spiritual persuasion is, that is indeed a slippery slope to be putting things on.
The best thing that could happen for everyone, churches, Gays, and the rest of us, is to allow equal rights for everyone; not just the few who think they have God figured out.
I doubt seriously your going to recall the judges, you barely had the votes to pull off this invalid and unconstitional election to begin with, getting people to recall judges is going to require another big wack of money, and its going to require convincing that small portion of swing voters that they shouldn't just allow the courts to decide the issue.
This whole thing has really turned me off towards religion completely, and while the religious continue to interfere with the personal and private lives of people not of their faith, I will be opposed to anything they are selling.
Posted By: Paul Benedict
Date: 2008-11-16 10:24:42
Hi Rob,
America was designed as a place where people of every faith could stop killing one another and work together for the freedoms we all enjoy.
However, this supposed "gay marriage" thing is not about religion. It is about everyone telling the truth. The truth is that no matter how many worship in the temple of Error a same sex couple cannot get married. No matter what justices decreee homosexuality not the laws of men forbid marriage.
To assume for a second that gay couples are "married" and then declare such "marriages" need equality is to swim in falsehood. Putting lies at the foundation of our law is to make ourselves subjects of an abject tyranny.
Thank you for this timely article. While those who lost in a democratic republican election process express their intolorance towards others who wish to maintain their right to free speech, their right to what morals are taught to their children and how they run their businesses ... others are heading towards the California Supreme court to ask it to dictate to citizens what religious and speech privileges they will be allowed to keep.
We may face a historic showdown over who has the altimate authority to dictate rights in a country who has lead the way to freedom for its people.
code 51939 is talking about "comprehensive sexual health education", while code 51890 does not mention "sexual" health education, only "the legal and financial aspects and responsibilities of marriage and parenthood". therefore if marriage is redefined, they could teach gay marriage on a "non-sexual" level which still includes the gay lifestyle. this is a way of sneaking in, or indoctrinating, things we don't want taught to our children.
51939.. "if the pupil's parent or guardian declines to permit the pupil to receive comprehensive sexual health education"
51890. (a) For the purposes of this chapter, "comprehensive health education programs" are defined as all educational programs offered in kindergarten and grades 1 to 12, inclusive, in the public school system, including in-class and out-of-class activities designed to ensure that:
(D) Family health and child development, including the legal and financial aspects and responsibilities of marriage and parenthood.
Prop 8 is an ammendment. Ammendments need 2/3's vote. The constitution by definiition already bans gay marriage. Gay marriage is the new thing it needs an ammendment. So why was time wasted on these 2 elections? Recall the gay judges the initial gay marriage (and all other states court rulings ie Mass, Conn) was incorrect.
Posted By: Paul Benedict
Date: 2008-11-29 10:48:50
Hi Gunny,
In the Federal Constitution an amendment needs 2/3 of the congress. In the slave states: Mass. and Conn. this may also be so. In California the people may amend the constitution with a simple majority vote. California may have its issues, but, in my view, its constitution is superior. For more info on California’s constitution: http://www.nolanchart.com/article5540.html.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
