The Eclipse of the American Idea

The legacy of the Declaration of Independence is well over two hundred years old, but the American idea has never been in greater danger.

First, the idea that the individual has been endowed by his Creator with the sovereign right to a government that works for him has been eroded by a hundred years of creeping socialism, but recently matters have become much worse. The most enduring legacy of our Constitution, a liberty that has stood unscathed, suddenly lies in smoking ruin. America’s religious liberties are gone. Their light has been eclipsed.

In deciding to make homosexual marriage the law of the land, the Supreme Court has, for all practical purposes, made homosexuality a protected civil rights class like race, religion, and gender. They have done so without a constitutional amendment or any attempt to solicit the will of the people. That they could do this shows how far gone our Constitutional liberties already were, but the court has made matters much worse.

The proof that the Supreme Court of the United States has unlawfully rewritten the United States Constitution is that our religious liberties are no more. The self-evident proof that our religious liberties are gone is in the desperate and pathetic attempts of some conservatives to produce bills downloadprotecting what has now been ripped, in practice, from the U.S. Constitution.

Our laws protecting religious liberty from government, a model that has spread world wide, have been twisted into a weapon to affect the very persecutions they were once written to end. For instance, as a Christian, I may not agree with other Christian florists and bakers who refuse to participate in a homosexual wedding. Indeed, I might make points about Christian charity and its power to change lives. Nevertheless, my brothers and sisters are under no legal obligation to agree with me. That’s the American way. That’s freedom of religion and of speech.

When the courts add homosexuality as a protected class, the American tradition of no government involvement in religion is utterly undermined. In practical effect, a church that espouses Christian charity for bakers, tailors, photographers, and florists is favored by government while Christian, Muslim, Hindu, or Jewish religions that begin to perform marriages for same sex couples would be even more highly favored. Ultimately, churches that refuse to self-edit their Bibles concerning homosexuality will come in conflict with the force of anti-discrimination laws once written to protect their liberties. Whether they use this authority or not, our government has now been granted the ability to establish a religion or to persecute a religion over its views on homosexuality. Oh, by the way, you can bet they’ll use it.

constantine swordThe sword Constantine the Great drew in the house of God, Thomas Jefferson sheathed in our founding documents. Constantine did not mark the birth of Christianity, but he marked the birth of Christendom in the West. From that day until our founders took their stand, by special endowment or by the use of military force, European governments sponsored teachings and leaders in Christian organizations. More blood ran from Constantine’s sword over the course of European history than from the Black Plague. Once the New World was discovered, courageous people couldn’t get away from Europe fast enough. The Supreme Court has drawn the sword of Constantine again. America’s Copernican shift in the view of the relationship between good people and their government has been shrouded in medievalism.

The Defamation of Marriage and the Rise of Totalitarianism

To abandon celebrating the self-evident truths of what a marriage is, is to abandon reason itself, for reason tells us that the oaths of marriage are abiding in their humanity. The abiding meaning of these oaths to the human spirit flow from their relationship to the commitment to others demanded by every biological union of man and Cer4F0TWQAEspsJwoman. The oaths of marriage are not for self.  The oaths of marriage begin with self, but they are in exchange for something higher in people than their personal desire. The exchange of vows is about far more than joint financial agreements that mutually benefit each ‘partner.’ Marriage oaths are selfless commitments made because of each individual’s honesty with reality.

In all of this “marriage equality” legalese is a kind of bitterness, a jealously that requires the defamation of marriage from personal spite. Only the strain-at-a-gnat, most superficial things that can, by arcane, nonsensical sophistry be associated with marriage, are of interest to modern “justice.” Under the guise of the misguided pursuit of the jurisprudence of equal outcomes as justice, the courts claim the state has no interest in the human part of marriage. Such courts and such laws must ignore liberty because liberty is a human thing. Only human hearts can see the bars that hold living things in prisons for what they truly are. 

It’s a hardness of heart, not justice, that shuts out human concerns, loves, and, finally, liberty in the name of equality.

Cer4FzQXEAQh1eDNo rational system of law can survive an arrogance so blinding it cannot see the purpose of the sacred promises of marriage, vows that are far above a desire for financial and social advantage or “equality.” No civilization can endure a foolishness so malignant that it would deny the reality, reason, and the nature of these vows. The alternatives are the savagery of totalitarian tyranny and mob rule. Vows like those that are part of marriage bring out the best, most humane in mankind. A nation that would ignore these values is inhuman and very dangerous.

Consider as an example of our national vulgarity, the legal corruption surrounding the trial of California’s Proposition 8, a trial that ended a voter initiated amendment to California’s constitution defining marriage. The definition of marriage the voters chose was, obviously, the definition of marriage already embodied in California’s constitution and family law.

Because the monkey trial atmosphere surrounding California’s Proposition 8 so reeked of corruption, it marriageis very difficult to tell from the edited version of the “Proponents Defense of Proposition 8″ (Walker’s ruling p. 6) how well ProtectMarriage.com defended that crazy California proposition that marriage is between a man and a woman. For instance, Proposition 8 is, first about preserving the definition of marriage in our laws. A marriage is a marriage and always will be a marriage despite the judicial travesty of putting marriage on trial for inequality. However, in protecting the definition of marriage, Proposition 8 is foremost a defense of the ‘right to marry’ enshrined in federal and state law. Neither the plaintiffs, the majority of voters, nor the judiciary have any authority to infringe upon this natural right of a man and a woman to join in marriage. Tragically, it has been the courts that have led the charge, not to preserve the right to marry, but to deprive the people of the legal recognition of this right. This is prima facie evidence that the bow of our constitutional government is sinking, and, like the stern of the Titanic, an American totalitarianism rises.

What was born in the darkness of California’s corrupt judicial proceedings, proceedings that showed a profound hatred of our constitutional law, can only bring deep evil to our society and culture.

Plainly some of ProtectMarriage.com’s arguments sounded like they were the wrong ones for this particular California judge. For instance, arguing that “We should not accept a court decision that may result in public schools teaching our own kids that gay marriage is ok…” (p. 7) is like arguing natural rights before a hereditary monarch. This is the blindness that passes for light in the dim and reeking recesses of our national “jurisprudence.”

Judge Walker sought to undermine a sound premise argued by ProtectMarriage. Judge Walker’s summary of this part of the argument reads, “…If the gay marriage ruling [of the California Supreme Court] is not overturned, TEACHERS COULD BE REQUIRED to teach young children there is no difference between gay marriage and traditional marriage” (p.7). Walker emphasized “could” to emphasize that the gay community repeatedly denied that teaching gay marriage to kindergartners was on the agenda. Apparently, the good judge felt it was time to refight the campaign, not in the public square where the brainless, dirty masses have the right and power to disagree. Instead, he chose to bolster its wijudgesdom by refighting the campaign in the sanctity of his safely elite, intellectually pure, courtroom. He didn’t argue the law. He argued words spoken in campaign literature. About this though, he was, as about everything else, wrong and deceitfully wrong. California history has shown conclusively that now that the Supreme Court of the United States has made dehumanized marriage the law of the land, our government schools will immediately become sexual “reeducation camps” from the earliest years.

Additionally, based on Judge Walker’s conclusion that asserting that marriage is between a man and a woman “targets gay and lesbians specifically due to sex (p.120),” he seems to have surprised everyone by taking the words “no difference” to mean no “qualitative” difference. In other words, he indicated that all who say that marriage is between a man and a woman intend to teach that same sex couples cannot be successful parents or that their commitment to each other is in some way inferior to that of heterosexual couples. He took, apparently without asking clear follow up questions, the plaintiff’s position that those who espouse the outrageous claim that marriage is between a man and a woman do so to intentionally disparage same sex couples. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Everyone recognizes that the differences that sane people wish to preserve between same sex unions and marriage are factual, biological, and historic.  If there is scientific evidence that children raised by same sex couples do not fare well, that is a matter for science and law. Courts have no more business legislating this that they do in devising the means of conducting open heart surgery.

ProtectMarriage explained that the plaintiffs give no alternative definition of marriage and send, therefore, every branch of family law into an endless morass of absurdity. Their words fell on deaf, callous ears.

It is, nevertheless, apparent that ProtectMarriage made a sound and vigorous defense of the benefits of kidsmarriage to children and for the state’s profound interest in the weakest among us. This is a sound argument, and in happier days such words would never have fallen unheeded to the ground. But these are perilous times. These are the days of a social obsession with an equality of outcomes so complete and total that no aspect of civil life is spared it’s intrusion. Instead of showing the natural compassion for the weak that must be part of a judicial temperament, Judge Walker fixated on bizarre celestial visions of equal protection. Instead of erring on the side of caution, Judge Walker put the state’s interest in assuring the will of the people with regards to the welfare of their children aside. As a result, one who seems unfit for the judgments of law has set himself up as the final authority and arbiter of the benefits of family to children. Judge Walker accepted novel studies over the proven wisdom of the ages. He did this because, in American society today, this is true enlightenment.

The defamation of marriage is the consequence of an idolatrous blindness and an ascending American totalitarianism.

These are the days of the leveling of our land. There can be no excellence because there can be no failure. It does not matter whether you study hard and become an outstanding physician who is able to help people in ways no one had ever thought about before; your outcome must be the same as your neighbor’s. It does not matter whether you’ve chosen to do drugs all through high school, the state must provide for your college education and the best health care that everyone else’s money can buy. Likewise, if you are a homosexual it is just not fair that you can’t be married like everyone else, even though it is physically impossible.

We have been making excuses for everyone in society.  It is not compassion but an obsessive craving for a self-deceptive, idolatrous ideal that thrives on its own relativistic madness. A fear of the truth, like the Tower of Babel, is being, block by block, lifted from the cheering masses of smug, useless “intellectuals” that populate the sterile hopeless corridors of our universities. Only the rise of a totalitarian state could defy the natural light of liberty completely enough to satisfy craving for self importance.

Most of the working people in America could care less about this new religion of egalitarianism. However, the elite of our educational institutions know this idol and have bowed before its golden horns.the-golden-calf

Western society’s “new” ideology, its “new” religion, is one so psychotic it can tolerate none other. Its first creed is that “all truth is relative.” Hence its others: “all choices are virtue,” “all choices are equal,” and, therefore “no choice has a consequence.” This is not a happy time in California where the merit of the family is not in the state interest. This is not a happy time in the United States when “equal protection” is exalted above sanity in a farce beyond historic parallel. The notion that some choices are a blessing to the individual and to his country is a notion that can no longer be tolerated. Such a conclusion is unacceptable, so no fact that leads to such conclusions can, ipso facto, be valid. Today we are closer to the days of the monkey-courts of the French Revolution than we were last week. An American totalitarianism is rising.

When a Tax is Not a Tax and a Marriage is not a Marriage

When the “congress of one,” Justice Roberts, voted with four other “judges” for the most massive takeover of the private economy ever, his reasoning pivoted on a lie. Not only did Roberts change the spelling of fine to ‘t-a-xroberts,’ but he also rewrote the U. S Constitution: no constitutional tax can arise from the Senate, even in a budget reconciliation conference.

Far worse, however, is the implementation of the first “tax” in history based on what a person doesn’t do. We are taxed on income we earn only because we work. When we pay a sales tax, we are taxed on what we choose to buy. Even the inheritance tax is based on the act of bequeathing one’s wealth. But the Obamacare “tax” is not like any other; it’s a tax on what we don’t do. The Obamacare tax is a singular monstrosity because a fine masquerading as  a a tax is another legalized lie.

The gospel of relativism has again led to lawlessness. Our laws, our constitutional system is now meanObamacare (1)ingless when it comes to federal power over our lives. From law is liberty. From relativism: tyranny.

Relativism’s gospel: “Oh, don’t worry yourselves over the details. Thinking is too much trouble. Everything will be fine. Just follow along”; then the cuffs are on, the door is latched, and the last light of liberty is gone.

The Supreme Court has just given the federal government the power to tax us if we don’t buy yogurt. We wouldn’t have to eat the yogurt, but we would have to buy it. The Supreme Court has just given the federal government the right to tax us if we don’t go to a privately operated fitness center. We don’t have to do anything once we get there, but we do have to report and sit around for three hours a week. If we don’t, we pay a tax.

America has surrendered a series of natural rights to its courts recently. For instance, we have a right to secure our own borders, but the courts just told Arizona that they must give illegal immigrants driver’s licenses. We have a natural right to marry as we choose, but in several states, like the word “tax” the word “marriage” has been destroyed. If a marriage is not a marriage, then, like “tax,” it is whatever the government says it is.

If a marriage is not a sacred contract between two people based on the natural right and ability to form a sexual union, then what is it? It’s whatever the nice government tells us it is. Maybe, since a real marriage is just about love, a marriage is only a marriage if the members of the compact are loving enough to enroll in the gold health care helpprogram, a very special program that has clear dietary regulations and aerobic achievement goals. It is certain that since a real marriage is “love” that no legally sanctioned marriage would ever use the terms “husband” and “wife” because that is so insensitive.

Natural rights are part of who we are has humans. They’ve existed before governments and empires. They exist as great civilizations fall into ruin and as others arise. Governments can’t take them away. Tyrannies can only go to war against our humanity. Our natural rights are like life and conscience. They are each person’s privilege. They are everyone’s responsibility.  What is far worse and far more dangerous than that we’ve allowed ourselves to be dehumanized by surrendering a host of natural rights over the last decade is this: our government has sought to take those rights away. Any government that wants to take such liberty from its citizens has aligned itself against the will of the Creator Himself who designed all mankind with the liberty to seek Him freely and enjoy His gifts.

When a tax is Not a tax and a marriage is not a marriage, it’s tyranny.

Dehumanized Marriage is Not a Party

Dehumanized marriage, gay marriage, is often touted as progress of some sort. Many seem to feel that a dehumanized marriage is like “letting everyone be part of the party.” Dehumanized marriage is not a party; it’s an invitation to tyranny.

Marriage, “a joining,” is a mutual commitment based on a biological union. While indeed, marriage is a “celebration” of this commitmarrriage 4ment, here the word “celebration” is not a party. Instead, the celebration sets aside a relationship between two people as unique because of the mutual decision to form a biological, sexual union. Whether or not children arise from this biological union, this union, marriage, is a commitment based on biological realities.

Marriage is both a natural right and a constitutional right. It’s a natural right because it is utterly independent of governments. Legitimate governments, though, as with all natural rights, are responsible for recognizing and protecting the humanizing reality of marriage. Indeed, in our recent constitutional past, courts have found this to be the case. In 1967, in 1978, and in 1987 the Supreme Court rightly found that marriage, understood in essence as, “the conjugal union of man and woman, contracted between two qualified persons, …[obliging] them to live together throughout life,” is not only a natural right, but a fundamental right inherent in the liberties our constitution obliges our government to note and protect.

Everyone knows that marriage is no picnic, but neither is it an adult prom, a special chance to be recognized by friends and family as part of the traditional flow of society. American laws are based on nearly eight hundred years of cartawar demanding, protecting, and transmitting natural rights and liberties. There must be some other way to make same sex couples feel welcome in society than by purposely undermining the core reality of natural rights that forms the foundation of Western law and civilization.

Doug Mainwaring, a gay Tea-Party activist, once called the marriage equality movement an “un-defining” of marriage. He was exactly right. This “un-defining” is an insidious destruction, not only of marriage, but of the limited government a free people must demand. While marriage, like conscience, is as lasting as our humanity itself, limited government relies on the rule of law. As Marxism has “un-defined” property and thievery, so our judicial system has been bearing the national chest to the storm, begging the lightning to strike. By dehumanizing our marriages and families, we declare ourselves mindless, mewing cattle ready for the avarice of tyrants.

Some of even the most patriotic Americans don’t really understand either the legal or spiritual history of marriage. magna-carta1For instance, one brief before the Ninth Circuit brief read: “At the heart of this case are two competing conceptions of marriage. The traditional conception…holds that.. its [marriage’s] central purpose…is to channel potentially procreative sexual relationships into enduring, stable unions for the sake of responsibly producing and raising the next generation.”

The carriage is before the horse! Children and a strong family are but a benefit of maintaining a marriage. It’s the fruit, not the tree. Our judiciary must be unceasingly reminded of their Constitutional responsibility to uphold the natural right to marry and all other natural rights.

Un-defining a right denies that right. If we have a right to marry, but the word “marriage” is meaningless, we have a right to nothing. A society that suppresses, ignores, or devalues any natural right will reap the whirlwind.

More will be impacted than the state of children in dehumanized “marriages.” If our government cannot be trusted to tell the truth about marriage, it can’t be trusted to tell the truth on anything. Why should we unfetter gmarriage 3overnment from its obligations to guard our inherent liberties? Would we willing allow the federal judiciary to un-define the right to bear arms? Perhaps the right to bear sharp Frisbees is liberty enough for a free people.

Any government that does not recognize and protect natural, unalienable rights is an unnatural evil. Why? Because that government’s entire mission statement has become corrupted. Legitimate governments only exist by virtue of their charter to recognize and protect the naturally arising, unalienable, inherent rights of every person.

Our founders rejected the early tenets of evolution expressed by the Enlightenment (see Thomas Jefferson On Intelligent Design), and, instead, felt that these inherent rights were evidence of the will of the Supreme Judge of the world. Any government that is “destructive of these ends” is, therefore, not only without legitimate authority, but also at war with Divine Providence.

Marx’s Plot to Destroy the Nuclear Family More Horrible than his Economics

Spreading the wealth around is an idea at least as old as Karl Marx’s Critique of the Gotha Program in which he wrote: “From each according to his ability to each according to his need.” To Marx this notion was a transitional principle leading to the workers’ paradise. His economic ideas are utterly nonsensical and have caused poverty and slavery wherever they’ve been tried. Even more sinister than an “economic system” based on lies that appeal to human jealousy and greed was Marx’s methods and plans for dismembering the hub of economic liberty: the nuclear family. As wicked as Marx’s appeal to the masses of the “downtrodden” were, even more base was his appeal for “a community of women.”

As part of the “dictatorship of the working class,” Marx desired that there would be no wealth to spread around. Marx wanted to abolish “capital.” That is, Marx envisioned abolishing the means to relate to others in terms of employer and wage earner.

marx

It was an idea that never worked very well. Why? Have you noticed the flaw in Marxist logic? If there is no capital, there can be no wage earners, or, in other words, no jobs. Therefore, Marxism leads to the absence of wealth!

Oddly, illogical notions don’t work in the real world. Because of the failure of these Marxist ideas in practice (as well as on the drawing board), one almost suspects the motivation of anyone in any government who proposes them.

On one level the motivation seems plain. The appeal of Marxism can be outwardly pleasant. When we humans don’t get what they want, it feels very unfair to us. It is easy to demand fairness instead of responsibility. It’s even easier to promise to make things fair by making a gift of someone else’s property to those who desire “fairness.” Nevertheless, considering how little clear thinking it takes to recognize the absurdity of Marxism, one must wonder about the cynicism of its proponents.

Marx also had some interesting notions about marriage. The Manifesto reads: “Bourgeois marriage is (because of rampant infidelity), in reality, a system of wives in common and thus, at the most, what the Communists might possibly be reproached with is that they desire to introduce, in substitution for a hypocritically concealed (system of free love), an openly legalized community of women.”

For Marx any force that disrupted one’s marriage was part of the plan for a worker’s paradise. The nuclear family appeared to be a threat to the communist theorist. Again the manifesto reads: “Abolition of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists.”  At any rate, once capital had been destroyed, of nature the workers RedWhiteparadise would feature no mothers and no fathers. In addition to the revolutionary party’s “community of women” Marx felt that public schools were the key to destroying the nuclear family. He was almost right about this, but marriage proved tougher than he thought. Since marriage exists prior to governments, it will endure when governments fail. Government schools can resist marriage, but cannot prevail against this God-given human ability because it is part of what people are.

Although Marx claimed that “the bourgeoisie has torn away from the family its sentimental veil, and has reduced the family relation into a mere money relation,” he was wrong about that as well. No, it would be a hundred and fifty years before the Supreme Court of the United States did this. Although married folk pay SCOTUS no mind, it begs the question: what kind of judicial system is it that wants to reduce marriage to a definition only ever imagined by Karl Marx? What kind of “justice” system hates what we are as people to such a fanatical degree?

A careful read of the Communist Manifesto will reveal its ambitious aims to amass the power of the state in the hands of the few. This, not a workers’ paradise, is what it has always achieved for those who have used its perverse arguments to their advantage. If you wonder why America has struggled since the late fifties, consider some of the other preconditions for Marxist communism that he first set out in 1847. Precondition #2: A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. Precondition #3: Abolition of all rights of inheritance. Precondition #10: Free education for all children in public schools.

By the way, some wondered whether the United States bank bailout plan would work. It did, but not, of course as wealth of nationsadvertised. Interestingly, here is the fifth of the ten Marxist preconditions for a workers paradise first outlined in the Communist Manifesto: “Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.” It all depends on what one means by “work.” Anyone who knew the history and failures of Marxist theory, would have been certain that the bailout plan would not produce wealth. However, if one hates the United States because of its international prestige, its great abundance, and its liberties, and, as a student of Marxism, has been awaiting a crisis of capital to forward the communist agenda for the express purpose of ruining the wealth of nations, this bailout worked perfectly. Small investors cannot earn interest. Centralized banks make trillions by simply recycling Federal Reserve green backs.

Marx’s opposition to The Wealth of Nations is plain. Poverty is the inevitable result of his precepts. His ideas about family are equally astute.

How to Recall a California Supreme Court Justice

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.”

California-Constitution-620x495The 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 representatives. 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.

Supreme Deception: California’s Supreme Court Twisted the Meaning of Family

Because the Ninth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals overturned California’s constitutional amendment defining marriage, California marriage laws have been returned to the deceitful language found in “re Marriages,” a ruling made by California’s supreme court. The following is a sample of the fabric of lies and deception that comprise that court’s opinion. The destruction of the word marriage comes complete with the obliteration of the meaning of the word family.

Deception 1 happened like this:

First, in 2003, for the first time in California’s history 2003, the legislature of California introduced confused language into the jurisprudence of the state with this uncodified statement of legislative intent:

“This act is intended to help California move closer to fulfilling the promises of inalienable rights, liberty, and equality contained in Sections 1 and 7 of Article 1 of the California Constitution by providing all caring and committed couples, regardless of their gender or sexual orientation, the opportunity to obtain essential rights, protections, and benefits and to assume corresponding responsibilities, obligations, and duties and to further the state’s interests in promoting stable and lasting family relationships, and protecting Californians from the economic and social consequences of abandonment, separation, the death of loved ones, and other life crises” [Stats. 2003, ch. 421, 1, subd. (a) excerpted from page 38 “re Marriages”].

It is unclear from the immediate context what the legislature intended by “in promoting lasting family relationships.” This may refer to the resolution of problems same sex couples had gaining access to loved ones during hospital stays. The domestic partnership act made one’s partner [Party A] a legal member of party B’s extended family. In that way, despite objections by Party A’s immediate family, Party B had full access and legal authority over Party A’s medical care.

Then, secondly, in 2005 the change of language from confused wording to deceptive jargon was completely effected:

As we (Judge George in his office as the Chief Justice of Supreme Court of California in its majority opinion) explained in Koebke, supra, 36 Cal.4th 824, 843: “[T]he decision . . . to enter into a domestic partnership is more than a change in the legal status of individuals . . . . [T]he consequence of the decision is the creation of a new family unit with all of its implications in terms of personal commitment as well as legal rights and obligations” (excerpted from page 46 of “re Marriages”).

face

In this quote from the 2005 majority opinion in Kobke vs. Bernardo Club Country Club, the court plainly uses the terms family unit and domestic partnership synonymously. What is new in the court’s jargon in “re Marriages” is the wider use of “family relationship” to mean marriage and domestic partnership. It is in this 2008 opinion that the Court has simply decided to dispense with dictionaries, histories, statutes, or linguistic contexts of any type. The prior use of unclear legislative language in the 2003 is a threadbare excuse to abandon the principles of jurisprudence, to legislate from the bench, and to attempt to deceive the public about the reality of homosexuality itself.

A marriage is simply not a family. A family is comprised of parents and children. Here, from Dictionary.com:

“Family 1. parents and their children, considered as a group, whether dwelling together or not. 2. the children of one person or one couple collectively: We want a large family. 3. the spouse and children of one person: We’re taking the family on vacation next week”

There are eleven definitions of family given on Dictionary.com. All of the definitions, even the idiomatic ones, explicitly include or figuratively imply children. In “re Marriages” the California Supreme Court defines the union of same sex couples as a “family” relationship. It is by this euphemism that the Court names the congress of couples heterosexual and homosexual.

With the obliteration of the meaning of marriage and family, elitists in government, who have now proven to be dishonest tyrants will dictate to us what our marriages and families should be.

No matter how enlightened we are, none of us want our courtrooms filled with vivid descriptions of what takes place to consummate marriages or same sex relationships. However, could the court have picked a more deceptive title to describe the relationship that is the basis of a domestic partnership? From a homosexual “marriage” no family can ever, by nature, grow.

Moreover, throughout its judicial history, California has used the words marriage and family appropriately.  For instance, here is a direct quote from a 1995 case cited in Judge George’s opinion:

“And in Warfield v. Peninsula Golf & Country Club (1995) 10 Cal.4th 594, in discussing the types of relationship that fall within the scope of the constitutionally protected right of intimate association (one component of our state constitutional right of privacy (id. at pp. 629-630)), we [Judge George himself is the we because, in his office as a Judge of the Supreme Court of California, he wrote the court’s opinion] explained that “the highly personal relationships that are sheltered by this constitutional guaranty are exemplified by those that attend the creation and sustenance of a family marriage . . . , childbirth . . . , the raising and education of children . . . and cohabitation with one’s relatives . . . [page 56].

The comment in brackets and the emboldened text added for clarification show that in 1995 the Supreme Court of California knew the difference between a marriage and a family. Marriages were part of the creation of a family. The raising and education of children were part of the sustenance of a family. In 1996 Supreme Court Judge Ronald George was elevated to Chief Justice.

one-human-family

In the evolution of the jargon of the California judiciary, it becomes plain that marriage has been banned by the Court. Marriages no longer lead to families; they are families. Like domestic partnerships, the consummating act of marriage is not required, nor is it recognized. Like marriages, families too are now no more or no less than what some court decides they are. Families in California are no longer recognized as realities preceding governments. If everything a family legally is, depends on the good graces of legislatures and courts, what privacy rights are left to protect?

Of course the change of the legal status of marriage changes the legal status of a family. Even as early as 2003 the extraordinary changes in domestic partnership law unconstitutionally impacted the rights of family. Beginning in 2003 “Party B” gained full rights with the parent of lineage to the children of “Party A”. This was not based on an expressed last will and testament of “Party A” that would then be contested in a family court. The simple act of registering as a domestic partner deprived the bloodline parent, the child’s true family, of elements of its legal family rights. In practice does this compare equally with similar rights maintained by a second spouse in ordinary law?

This, however, not the only deception perpetrated on the public by the Supreme Court of California use of language. The deceptions in “re Marriages” and its repercussions are discussed in “Supreme Deception: re Marriages Twists the Meaning of Family, Part II.”

Five Elements of Lawlessness Introduced via California’s Gay Marriage “Laws”

bear

Accepting the Ninth Circuit Court’s rewrite of California’s constitution always was the wrong way to pursue gay marriage. Here are some reasons why:

1. The court’s rewrite is a power grab by government. Now only the government has the right to say what a marriage is…. and courts at that. Previously, a marriage was a marriage no matter what a government said.

2. The court’s rewrite contracts the definition of marriage. It doesn’t’ expand it. Gay couples are not “married.” Because the rejection of California’s constitutional amendment on marriage throws California’s law back into the disarray cause by it’s own Supreme Court’s rewrite, the court has simply denied a proper legal recognition of marriage to all. We can now only be recognized as “Party A” and “Party B.”

3. The court has ordered everyone to deceive his neighbor by using the word “marriage.” State officials are to use the word “marriage” in a manner consistent with the joining of a man and a woman when the court’s revision has stripped the word of this essential meaning.

4. The court’s rewrite of California’s laws violate basic civil liberties. These civil liberties (the right to marry for instance) should be precious to all Americans.

5. The California attorney general’s refusal to defend California’s law before the Supreme Court has become an example of lawlessness in government for even more corrupt officials in the federal government. Ultimately, fundamental elements of California law have been wrest from the people and handed over to a coup of an elitist sect with neither conscience nor heart.

bear baiting

Everyone has framed this issue in ways irrelevant to the core issues. For instance,  people act as though California law now contains an amendment to its constitution that says, “Marriage is between a Man and a Woman and is also ______________________ (no one has ever filled in this blank in any national discussion of Gay Marriage)….” This is absolutely not the case. The California Court, and the Attorney General’s refusal to challenge the override of the California State Constitutional Amendment has closed the door on meaningful adoption of same-sex marriage. There is no core to California family law. It’s gone. It’s whatever the elites say at any moment.

“Bitter” Americans Stuck to Their Guns in Kern California

“Bitter” bibleAmericans stuck to their guns in Kern California.

On June 10, 2008, just days before the days of illegal “marriages” in California, the Kern County board of supervisors, citing their desire to cling to their religious beliefs, ceased all ceremonies solemnizing civil marriages in that county. Four weeks later, on July 8, 2008, despite already exposing the County to a deluge of lawsuits presided over by an antagonistic monkey court, this “bitter” California county felt that they had not yet done enough. To do more to rebel against California’s Supreme tyranny, the Kern County Board of Supervisors considered a motion to begin issuing legal marriage licenses, licenses that said “husband” and “wife” and that could not be used by couples that needed to be subtitled “Party A” and “Party B.” The Kern County Board of Supervisors eventually backed down, but not from cowardice, but from courage and integrity, the qualities sometimes named bitterness by the truly enlightened.

Kern County had been presented with a detailed legal briefing explaining that for a marriage to be legal it must comport with the law. The United States Justice Foundation (USJF) briefing concluded that Proposition 22 was always an unnecessary gesture and that the abundance of California statutes that say marriage takes place between a man and a woman still have legal status. For same sex “marriages” to be legal, all these statutes must be rewritten by California’s legislature. Additionally, pointed out the brief, the Kern County Board of Supervisors is beholden by oath to uphold the law, not the rulings of any Court, or the illegal actions of the executive branch. At Wednesday night’s meeting “bitter” American after “bitter” American encouraged the Board of Supervisors to issue the new Kern County marriage licenses. There are reports form sources close to the board that several of the Commission’s “Party A’s” also pleaded that the board move forward. Additionally, several studies had demonstrated that a flood of tax and tourist revenue would have been spawned by the crowds of Californians that were willing to come to Kern. Studies estimated that thousands of Californians would be willing to travel to Kern for the sake of keeping the sentimental “husband” and “wife” title part of their marriage.

But it was not to be. In the end nothing could move this “bitter” County Board; their personal integrity could not be so easily swayed. Legally, Kern County does not have the authority to distribute marriage licenses. Marriage licenses can only be issued by the State of California. It did not matter that the Mayor of San Francisco issued illegal licenses and was rewarded by the Supreme Court of California with a sweeping rewrite of California law and an unconstitutional ruling in his support. Not even the prosperity of the unjust would shake this Board’s “bitterness.” Their integrity was not to be undermined by examples from this world. May Pennsylvania’s Americans prove half as “bitter” when their time comes, and, yes sir, it’s on its way.

Supervisor Rubio proposed a revisiting of the ban on civil ceremonies citing the 2,000 civil marriages performed last year, many for minority couples. On this, the board again demurred, still granting licenses, but not ceremonies to petitioners. Had this columnist the foresight to attend or email this very bitter board, he would have urged that the dispensation of all illegal marriage licenses begin in August. Let it be what it is in truth. The California Supreme Court has, somehow, with an unconstitutional process, tyrannically banned all lawful marriage in California. I urge all bitter Americans in California civil government to let it be what it truly is. If you don’t have the power to issue legal certificates, at least refuse to issue illegal ones.