Goliath comes in many forms~
It is time to stop the devastation to innocent families which is occurring daily across the country.
My Family Rights Affiliation


Saturday, August 7, 2010

Do Family Rights = Constitutional Rights????

 There is one Critical time that this may be true. Primarily, if your children are removed from your home without
           1)A warrant; and/or
           2)There is no proof of "Imminent Danger" to your children.
" The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." (Related Document: Castle Doctrine)

 Here are additional thoughts on this issue. Please share the information online and/or even door to door: Link>> http://nfpcar.org/Miranda

But then Again>> Previously posted
Just thought I would share this email. And only in CA, here is a fight that has been going on for years, plus well over 40 million dollars from both sides.

I say what a waste of money. It is unfortunate that Both sides could spend this on Reform for Our Families and Parents of the Families. Mainly, insisting a Due Process of the Law in Our Family Court Arena. If, by some miracle, this fight should end supporting "Equal Marriage", even the "Gay Married" will have to face the biases, etc with the family court system. As a matter of fact, we, as a minor group, in the battle against the system, have guided those of the same sex and their children, defend their Family against the system. (Refer to http://nfpcar.org)

The question that I posed, in the beginning, to both parties, was "Is it appropriate to establish the definition of "Traditional Marriage" as a Constitutional Amendment??? And, I still ask this question. Key phrase being "Equal Rights"

Which leads to the basic simple premise "Can we as a couple live together to share our experiences as a family?".. And actually, if one looks at the statutes in CA, they afford the same legal rights as a couple of man and woman.

But then comes the million dollar question. Can we call it marriage?? I say "Why not".... But it can not be denied that the proper phrases should be "Gay Marriage" and "Traditional Marriage"

So I guess what I am saying, if one considers to use the constitution of equal rights, it could indeed be equal, but not the same... Confused???

And to use the Religious justifications?? Don't get me wrong, I do believe in a Higher Power?? But I pose even a more basic premise. "Even the caveman knew it took a man and woman to create a family!!"

So, FYI, here is an email relating to the support of Our Politicians: Oh did I mention, in the vote for Prop 8, the public vote said "Yes" for Prop. 8.. But who can ever believe a Politician??

Schwarzenegger, Brown violate their oaths
Despite 2003 position statement and subsequent vetoes of same-sex "marriages," lame-duck governor calls for immediate implementation of anti-Prop. 8 ruling

SaveCalifornia.com provides the following solely for educational purposes and does not support or oppose candidates.

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown, both shirking their sworn pledge to support and defend the California Constitution -- which, in Article 1, Section 7.5, states, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California" -- today filed briefs with U.S. Judge Vaughn Walker of San Francisco opposing a permanent stay of his ruling in favor of homosexual "marriages" and urging the judge to allow homosexual "marriage" licensing immediately. The judge is expected to decide next week whether to put his ruling on hold pending the appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

"Both Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jerry Brown lied to the people and to the Constitution when they raised their right hand and swore to support and defend the specific words written in the California Constitution, "said Randy Thomasson, president of SaveCalifornia.com, a leading West Coast pro-family, pro-child organization. "Arnold Schwarzenegger has lied to the voters by repeatedly saying he respected their will on marriage. Judge Walker, even though he ruled Prop. 8 'unconstitutional,' should reject these extraordinary pleas from these corrupt, derelict-of-duty politicians, and grant a standard stay pending the appeal of this explosive challenge to man-woman marriage in the California Constitution."


2003: "I think that gay marriage (sic) is something that should be between a man and a woman." Source

2005: Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, under growing pressure from his conservative supporters, promised Wednesday to veto the gay marriage bill passed less than a day earlier by the Democrat-led Legislature. The Legislature's action trampled over Proposition 22, an overwhelmingly popular 2000 initiative that banned same-sex marriage in California, said a spokeswoman for the governor. "We cannot have a system where the people vote and the Legislature derails the vote," said Margita Thompson, Schwarzenegger's press secretary. "Out of respect for the will of the people, the governor will veto AB 849." Source

2007: Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed a same-sex marriage bill Friday, the second time in three years that such a measure died on the governor's desk. In his veto message, the Republican governor said it is up to the state Supreme Court and then, if necessary, voters to alter Proposition 22, which defines marriage as between a man and a woman in California. Source

And today....

Let gays begin marrying, Schwarzenegger urges
Kevin Yamamura, Sacramento Bee
Published Friday, Aug. 06, 2010

In an extraordinary court filing, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger asked Friday that gay marriages be allowed to resume immediately in California after a federal ruling that the state's voter-approved ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional.

The Republican governor filed his brief with U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn R. Walker before a Friday deadline to submit arguments on whether to continue a stay of Walker's decision against Proposition 8.

"The Administration believes the public interest is best served by permitting the Court's judgment to go into effect, thereby restoring the right of same-sex couples to marry in California," wrote Kenneth C. Mennemeier, an attorney representing Schwarzenegger, in the brief. "Doing so is consistent with California's long history of treating all people and their relationships with equal dignity and respect."

Walker concluded in a decision Wednesday that Proposition 8 violates the equal protection and due process rights of gays and lesbians. The initiative passed with 52 percent of the vote in November 2008.

As governor, Schwarzenegger is named as a defendant in the case, although he remained neutral in the lawsuit challenging Proposition 8. The governor was against the initiative when it was on the ballot and chose not to defend the constitutional amendment in court. He filed his brief Friday in his role as a named defendant and on behalf of two other administration officials.

The Schwarzenegger administration contended in the brief that there is no governmental or public interest in continuing a ban on gay marriage after Walker's decision." Instead, the administration said that allowing such marriages to resume would further the state's interest in recognizing the rights of gays and lesbians. It also said that there would be no administrative burden for the state to issue marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples. California issued 18,000 such licenses before passage of Proposition 8.

Schwarzenegger applauded Walker's decision earlier this week.

"For the hundreds of thousands of Californians in gay and lesbian households who are managing their day-to-day lives, this decision affirms the full legal protections and safeguards I believe everyone deserves," the governor said in a statement Wednesday.

California Attorney General Jerry Brown, a Democrat, filed a similar motion. Brown had argued that Proposition 8 was unconstitutional when the measure went before the California Supreme Court last year.

Folsom attorney Andy Pugno, author of Proposition 8 and a Republican candidate running in the 5th Assembly District, said in a statement Friday: "We disagree. This case is still in its early stages, and it would be disruptive for everyone to issue marriage licenses under a cloud of uncertainty."

Pugno was part of the team that argued before Walker, who ruled Proposition 8 unconstitutional on Wednesday. Lawyers from both sides have until midnight to file complete briefs arguing for or against a continued stay. There is no time limit on when he might rule.

The Proposition 8 defense team filed an initial brief Tuesday to bolster its request for a stay should Walker rule against California's same-sex marriage ban. The lawyers asked for a permanent stay to last for the duration of an appeal they filed with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals or at least a temporary stay lasting seven days.

Lawyers for ProtectMarriage.com, which sponsored Proposition 8, asked Walker for a stay because they believe they will eventually win. They say claims that the initiative is unconstitutional "run up against binding authority at every turn."

The brief says that the U.S. Supreme Court's "cases addressing the fundamental right to marry all arose in the context of marriage defined as a union of a man and a woman and plainly acknowledge the abiding connection between marriage and the potentially procreative nature of opposite-sex relationships."

The Proposition 8 attorneys also argue in their initial brief that Proposition 8 "allows California to proceed with caution when considering fundamental changes to a vitally important social institution."

Schwarzenegger has vetoed state bills that passed the Legislature legalizing same-sex marriage - reasoning at that time that courts should decide the matter - but he declined to defend Proposition 8 in the federal court challenge. He has also indicated in the past that he believes that same-sex marriage will eventually be allowed.

After the California Supreme Court upheld Proposition 8 in 2009 - based on a finding that voters had a right to change the state constitution - Schwarzenegger appeared on "The Tonight Show" with Jay Leno. "I think this is not over, this decision, because I think they're (same-sex marriage proponents) are going to be back," he said.

"In a year or two, they will be back again with another initiative trying to get it," the governor said. "You know, eventually it's going to be overturned."
Post a Comment