Credit to: Campaign for Children and Families
May 19, 2008
To visit their site, please go to http://www.savecalifornia.com/index.php
What to Do Right Now
People are outraged that the California State Supreme Court has ruled to destroy the institution of marriage and to trample the people's previous vote on marriage.
They're asking what they can do.
Campaign for Children and Families (CCF) has a battle plan, and you need to be part of it. This is your generation’s war for marriage, children and the very foundation of society. Please read to be informed, then follow the THREE action steps further down the page.
But first, realize that the California Constitution only allows the Legislature (through the passage of bills) and the voters (through the initiative process) to make new laws. Article 4, Section 1 reads: The legislative power of this State is vested in the California Legislature which consists of the Senate and Assembly, but the people reserve to themselves the powers of initiative and referendum.
Second, you need to know that the California Constitution expressly prohibits state judges from exercising lawmaking power, which only belongs to the Legislature and the people. Article 3, Section 3 reads: The powers of state government are legislative, executive, and judicial. Persons charged with the exercise of one power may not exercise either of the others except as permitted by this Constitution.
Therefore, the ruling to impose homosexual "marriages" upon California was tyrannical, unconstitutional, and immoral. Like many state legislatures that refused to accept the U.S. Supreme Court's 1857 Dred Scott decision saying slaves were property not persons, Californians must not accept the California Supreme Court's edict that marriage is no longer only for a man and a woman.
Top priority: Lobby officials to "stay" the Supreme Court Ruling
To "stay" a ruling means to postpone it from going into effect until an undetermined time in the future. The May 15 ruling from the California Supreme Court orders county clerks to begin preparing to issue same-sex “marriage” licenses once the decision is final in 30 days. Presumably, this means the homosexual “marriages” would begin Monday, June 16.
There are efforts underway by both Liberty Counsel and Alliance Defense Fund to ask the state high court to “stay” the ruling pending the people’s vote on marriage licenses on the November ballot.
The ProtectMarriage.com initiative, which turned in 1.1 million signatures in April, is likely to be certified for the November ballot by early June – before the ruling goes into effect. An amendment to the California Constitution, this measure would override the justices and render their ruling void if passed by the majority of voters.
But here's the critical issue right now. Before closing the door to homosexual “marriages” at the ballot box, we all must work hard to block that door to prevent some 20,000 counterfeit marriages from occurring this summer and influencing millions of California children.
From both a legal and public order perspective, it makes total sense for the Supreme Court justices to delay the implementation of the ruling since the people have demanded the right to decide the marriage license question on the ballot.
A delay or "stay" is about maintaining public order and respecting the democratic process. We already know three of the seven justices (Baxter, Chin and Corrigan) would support a “stay.” Like the 4-3 decision to redefine marriage, the granting of the “stay” request will come down to one man, Chief Justice Ron George.
In a May 18 Los Angeles Times article, George talked about his concern that homosexual licenses not be left “in limbo,” and said the constitution was the “ultimate expression of the people’s will.” He also talked about enjoying receiving cards from friends. Then this: Asked whether he thought most Californians would accept the marriage ruling, George said flatly: "I really don't know."
TAKE QUICK ACTION:
1. Send a personal, hand-written POSTCARD to Ron George. Ask him to “Please issue a stay in the marriage decision so that same-sex marriages won’t be left in limbo and the people can express their ultimate will in the constitution.”
Chief Justice Ronald M. George
Supreme Court of California
350 McAllister Street
San Francisco, CA 94102
Also, if you’re a person of faith, pray to God to ask for His mercy and for a stay to be issued. Examine yourself and confess your shortcomings. What have you done or not done that has contributed to bad politicians and bad judges coming in to power? Read how the prophet Daniel confessed his sins to God after the destruction of his land.
2. Call Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger at 916-445-2841. Call during daytime hours to leave a message with a live staffer. Tell Schwarzenegger: Don’t change the marriage license form until the Legislature first changes the marriage statutes in the Family Code. Ask the Supreme Court to "stay" its ruling in deference to the upcoming vote of the people in November.
Send the Governor a powerful message that CCF has prewritten for you
[Note to the reader: A statute is a regular law, passed either by the Legislature or the voters. There are several statutes in the Family Code that regulate marriage licenses (which are applied for by the bride and the groom) and marriage certificates (which are filed with the county after the marriage ceremony). In 2004, the Schwarzenegger administration rejected San Francisco's 4,000 homosexual "marriage" licenses, saying they violated the marriage statutes in the Family Code. This same constitutional rationale applies today, for only the Legislature or the voters can make new laws (California Constitution, Article 4, Section 1). Due to strict separation of powers, the judiciary is prohibited from making new laws (California Constitution, Article 3, Section 3). The California Marriage Amendment on the November 2008 ballot is a constitutional amendment, which, if passed, will overrule the judges' decision.]
3. Urge your local county clerk in California to follow the marriage statutes, not the court's unacceptable, unconstitutional ruling.
County clerks in California’s 58 counties should decline to follow the court’s “opinion.” They can ignore it because a) they have to follow the law (the California statutes) and b) the California Constitution prohibits the judiciary from making laws. Remember that:
> 52 out of 58 California counties voted for Prop. 22, the statutory man-woman marriage initiative, in 2000
> California to this day defines marriage for a man and a woman throughout the Family Code
> The California Supreme Court has no constitutional right to “legislate from the bench”
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE 3, SECTION 3 "STATE OF CALIFORNIA"
The powers of state government are legislative, executive, and judicial. Persons charged with the exercise of one power may not exercise either of the others except as permitted by this Constitution.
> Only the Legislature through the passage of bills or the people through the initiative process can make new laws
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE 4, SECTION 1 "LEGISLATIVE"
The legislative power of this State is vested in the California Legislature which consists of the Senate and Assembly, but the people reserve to themselves the powers of initiative and referendum.
County clerks, who are elected by local voters, must do what's right and preserve public order.
a) The California statutes only allow marriage between a man and a woman
b) The people voted in 2000 to reserve marriage licenses for a man and a woman in the Family Code
c) The California Constitution clearly prohibits the state high court from making laws. Only the people through the initiative process or the Legislature through the legislative process can do that
Local voters of counties that approved Proposition 22 in 2000 will greatly appreciate the county clerk upholding the marriage statutes, respecting the democratic process, and declining to participate in the Supreme Court's nonsense that goes against nature and family and the best interests of children.
See the map showing the 52 of 58 California counties that approved Prop. 22 which read “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” IMPORTANT FACT: This March 2000 ballot measure was a statutory initiative, not a constitutional amendment. Prop. 22 went into the Family Code. In contrast, the California Marriage Amendment on the November 2008 ballot will go into the California Constitution, overruling the Supreme Court's opinion on marriage.
ACTION: If your county approved Prop. 22, please call your county clerk immediately. Urge him or her not to issue marriage licenses to anyone but a man and a woman. Urge your county clerk to:
“Do what’s right, maintain public order, uphold the marriage statutes, and respect the democratic process by NOT issuing any ‘same-sex marriage’ licenses until the people decide this issue in November. Please enforce the marriage statutes and Proposition 22, which both say marriage is only for a man and a woman. Decline to go along with the court’s nonsense. The separation of powers provision of the California Constitution prohibits the court from legislating from the bench. That's why even Chief Justice Ron George told the L.A. Times he didn't know whether his ruling would be accepted."
Remember, even if county clerks say they MUST follow the Supreme Court decision, that's not true and you should tell them so. The California Supreme Court has no constitutional authority to impose new laws -- especially laws that go against marriage and family, the foundation of society (see California Constitution, Article 3, Section 3 and Article 4, Section 1). Only the Legislature and the voters can make new laws with statewide application.
Ask your county clerk if they were a Nazi officer during WWII and had been ordered to gas the Jews, would they? At the Nuremberg trials, they would have been convicted of murder for following this immoral order. And should have states obeyed the 1857 Dred Scott decision designating black slaves as "property," not "persons"? Abraham Lincoln reacted with disgust to the ruling and was spurred into political action, publicly speaking out against it. Several state legislatures essentially nullified the decision and declared that they would never permit slavery within their borders, no matter who ordered them to do so. Likewise, the ruling to destroy the man-woman definition of marriage should not be obeyed.
IF YOUR COUNTY APPROVED PROP. 22 TO PROTECT MARRIAGE LICENSES, CALL YOUR COUNTY CLERK DURING THE WORK WEEK 8 A.M. – 5 P.M.
Alameda County
Opposed Prop. 22
Alpine County
Approved Prop. 22 by 64%
Barbara Howard, County Clerk
530-694-2281
Amador County
Approved Prop. 22 by 73%
Sheldon Johnson, Recorder-Clerk
209-223-6468
Butte County
Approved Prop. 22 by 69%
Candace Grubbs, County Clerk
530-538-6366
Calaveras County
Approved Prop. 22 by 73%
Karen Varni, County Clerk
209-754-6376
Colusa County
Approved Prop. 22 by 79%
Kathleen Moran, County Clerk-Recorder
530-458-0500
Contra Costa County
Approved Prop. 22 by 65%
Stephen Weir, County Clerk
925-335-7800
Del Norte County
Approved Prop. 22 by 73%
Vicki Frazier, County Clerk-Recorder
707-464-7216
El Dorado County
Approved Prop. 22 by 70%
William Schultz, Recorder-Clerk
530-621-7480
Fresno County
Approved Prop. 22 by 76%
Victor E. Salazar, County Clerk/Registrar of Voters
559-488-3246
Glenn County
Approved Prop. 22 by 82%
Vince Minto, County Clerk-Recorder
530-934-6414
Humboldt County
Approved Prop. 22 by 53%
Carolyn Wilson Crnich, County Clerk, Recorder and Registrar of Voters
707-445-7481
Imperial County
Approved Prop. 22 by 74%
Dolores Provencio, County Clerk-Recorder
760-482-4226
Inyo County
Approved Prop. 22 by 74%
Mary Roper, County Clerk/Registrar of Voters
760-878-0224
Kern County
Approved Prop. 22 by 80%
Ann Barnett, Auditor-Controller-County Clerk-Registrar of Voters
661-868-3590
Kings County
Approved Prop. 22 by 81%
Ken Baird, County Clerk-Recorder
559-582-3211 EXT. 4401
Lake County
Approved Prop. 22 by 66%
Pam Cochrane, County Clerk
707-263-2311
Lassen County
Approved Prop. 22 by 78%
Julie Bustamante, County Clerk-Recorder
530-251-8217
Los Angeles County
Approved Prop. 22 by 59%
Dean Logan, Registrar - Recorder/County Clerk
562-466-1310
Madera County
Approved Prop. 22 by 80%
Rebecca Martinez, County Clerk-Recorder
559-675-7720
Marin County
Opposed Prop. 22
Mariposa County
Approved Prop. 22 by 74%
Keith Williams, County Clerk
209-966-2007
Mendocino County
Approved Prop. 22 by 50%
Susan Ranochak, Assessor-County Clerk-Recorder
707-463-4371
Merced County
Approved Prop. 22 by 77%
Stephen Jones, County Clerk/Registrar
209-385-7541
Modoc County
Approved Prop. 22 by 81%
Judith Stevens, County Clerk
530-233-6200
Mono County
Approved Prop. 22 by 60%
Lynda Roberts, County Clerk-Recorder-Registrar
760-932-5537
Monterey County
Approved Prop. 22 by 56%
Stephen Vagnini, Assessor-County Clerk-Recorder
831-755-5041
Napa County
Approved Prop. 22 by 57%
John Tuteur, Assessor-Recorder-County Clerk
707-253-4321
Nevada County
Approved Prop. 22 by 65%
Gregory Diaz, Clerk-Recorder
530-265-1298
Orange County
Approved Prop. 22 by 69%
Tom Daly, County Clerk-Recorder
714-834-2500
Placer County
Approved Prop. 22 by 70%
Jim McCauley, County Clerk-Recorder-Registrar
530-886-5650
Plumas County
Approved Prop. 22 by 71%
Kathleen Williams, County Clerk-Recorder-Registrar of Voters
530-283-6256
Riverside County
Approved Prop. 22 by 73%
Larry Ward, Assessor-County Clerk-Recorder
951-486-7450
Sacramento County
Approved Prop. 22 by 63%
Craig Kramer, Interim County Clerk/Recorder
916-874-6334
San Benito County
Approved Prop. 22 by 62%
Joe Paul Gonzalez, County Clerk-Auditor-Recorder
831-636-4029
San Bernardino County
Approved Prop. 22 by 76%
Larry Walker, Auditor-Controller-Recorder/County Clerk
909-387-8334
San Diego County
Approved Prop. 22 by 63%
Gregory Smith, Assessor/Recorder/County Clerk
619-237-0502
San Francisco City and County
Opposed Prop. 22
San Joaquin County
Approved Prop. 22 by 73%
Gary Freeman, Recorder / County Clerk 209-468-3939
San Luis Obispo County
Approved Prop. 22 by 62%
Julie Rodewald, County Clerk-Recorder
805-781-5228
San Mateo County
Approved Prop. 22 by 51%
Warren Slocum, Assessor-County Clerk-Recorder 650-312-5222
Santa Barbara County
Approved Prop. 22 by 57%
Joseph Holland, County Clerk, Recorder and Assessor
805-568-2200
Santa Clara County
Approved Prop. 22 by 53%
Regina Alcomendras, County Clerk-Recorder
408-299-2481
Santa Cruz County
Opposed Prop. 22
Shasta County
Approved Prop. 22 by 77%
Cathy Darling, County Clerk
530-225-5730
Sierra County
Approved Prop. 22 by 73%
Heather Foster, County Clerk-Recorder
530-289-3295
Siskiyou County
Approved Prop. 22 by 73%
Colleen Setzer, County Clerk
530-842-8084
Solano County
Approved Prop. 22 by 65%
Charles Lomeli, Treasurer–Tax Collector–County Clerk
707-784-7510
Sonoma County
Opposed Prop. 22
Stanislaus County
Approved Prop. 22 by 75%
Lee Lundrigan, County Clerk-Recorder
209-525-5200
Sutter County
Approved Prop. 22 by 78%
Donna Johnston, County Clerk-Recorder 530-822-7122
Tehama County
Approved Prop. 22 by 81%
Beverly Ross, County Clerk-Recorder 530-527-8190
Trinity County
Approved Prop. 22 by 70%
Deanna Bradford, County Clerk-Recorder-Assessor
530-623-1220
Tulare County
Approved Prop. 22 by 81%
Gregory Hardcastle, County Clerk-Recorder
559-733-6377
Tuolumne County
Approved Prop. 22 by 72%
Deborah Russell, County Clerk-Auditor-Controller
209-533-5570
Ventura County
Approved Prop. 22 by 64%
Phil Schmit, County Clerk-Recorder-Registrar of Voters
805-654-2781
Yolo County
Opposed Prop. 22
Yuba County
Approved Prop. 22 by 77%
Terry Hansen, County Clerk-Recorder 530-749-7855
No comments:
Post a Comment