4th Senate District Race Update / Prop 8 Update

Ahhhh yes, the fur is flying and the No on 8 crowd have finally showed their agenda. Some of the highest-rated posts on Right On Daily have come courtesy of our coverage of the absurdity of the Prop 8 trial.

The No on 8 crowd are actually arguing that Prop 8 should be voided because they argue that yes on 8 was motivated by religious animus. One witness, Gary Segura, a Stanford University political science professor with expertise in the area of the political power of minorities including homosexuals, summed it up when he said “religion is the chief obstacle for gays’ and lesbians’ political progress.”

So there you have it – out in the open. The group screaming the loudest for tolerance wants tolerance at the expense of religious freedom.

They are also arguing that Homosexuals are an oppressed minority – or something similar. Did anyone look and see that there are at least ten homosexuals in the state legislature as well as the speaker of the Assembly. Not bad for a group representing about 2% of the population. Read this post for more on the Biased Media Coverage of the Prop 8 Trial.

Now – let’s say you’re running for State Senate. You are racking up the same endorsement list as someone who ran for Congress, spent $8 Million and lost. But, now – people are bailing off of that endorsement list for nothing other than a validation of your opponent’s message.

You would be Doug LaMalfa. Your opponent who is digging in to your base of support would be Rick Keene.

The Sheriff of Del Norte County bailed on LaMalfa.

The Mayor of the largest city in the district (Redding) bailed on LaMalfa.

And the grass roots, “Keene has previously been endorsed by YRFC Chapters in Butte, Yuba, Sutter Counties as well as the state YRFC.” (quoting a Keene press release when he announced the Nevada County YRFC endorsement)

Doug LaMalfa is in trouble and February hasn’t even started yet.

BREAKING NEWS: California Supreme Court Upholds Ban on Gay Marriage

Breaking Now:

The California Supreme Court ruled today that voters’ ban on gay marriages should prevail, but allowed to stand marriages that occurred in the brief window before the vote was taken.

Proposition 8 passed last Nov. 4 with about 52 percent of the vote. It changes California’s constitution with a simple declaration that only a marriage between a man and a woman is legal and valid in the state.

In the long and twisting same-same marriage battle in California, this isn’t the first time the justices have ruled on the emotionally charged issue.

In May 2008 the same justices overturned a voter-approved law banning gay marriage and issued a decision favorable to same-sex marriage rights. Suddenly, the way was paved for thousands of gay couples to wed across the state.

SOURCE:

California AG Asks State Supreme Court Invalidate Gay Marriage Ban

Let me start by saying that this post has nothing to do with my personal belief on Gay Marriage or Prop 8.

This just goes to show that if you humiliate people, vandalize peoples property, riot, picket businesses that supported a proposition you disagree with or out individuals who support that proposition, you just might get your way!

All of the vandalism and rioting is not free speech, it is nothing more that thuggery!

SAN FRANCISCO — California Attorney General Jerry Brown changed course on the state’s new same-sex marriage ban Friday and urged the state Supreme Court to void Proposition 8.

In a dramatic reversal, Brown filed a legal brief saying the measure that amended the California Constitution to limit marriage to a man and a woman is itself unconstitutional because it deprives a minority group of a fundamental right. Earlier, Brown had said he would defend the ballot measure against legal challenges from gay marriage supporters.

“The amendment-initiative process does not encompass a power to abrogate fundamental constitutional rights without a compelling justification,” he wrote. “Proposition 8 lacks such a justification.”

Brown, who served as governor from 1975 to 1983, is considering seeking the office again in 2010. After California voters passed Proposition 8 on Nov. 4, Brown said he personally voted against it but would fight to uphold it as the state’s top lawyer.

He submitted his brief in one of the three legal challenges to Proposition 8 brought by same-sex marriage supporters. The measure, a constitutional amendment that passed with 52 percent of the vote, overruled the Supreme Court decision last spring that briefly legalized gay marriage in the nation’s most populous state.

Shannon Minter, legal director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, called the attorney general’s change of strategy “a major development.”

“The fact that after looking at this he shifted his position and is really bucking convention by not defending Prop. 8 signals very clearly that this proposition can not be defended,” Minter said.

The sponsors of Proposition 8 on Friday revealed for the first time that they would fight to undo the marriages of the estimated 18,000 same-sex couples who exchanged vows before voters banned gay marriage at the ballot box last month.

The Yes on 8 campaign filed a brief telling the court that because the new law holds that only marriages between a man and a woman are recognized or valid in California, the state can no longer recognize the existing same-sex unions.

“Proposition 8’s brevity is matched by its clarity. There are no conditional clauses, exceptions, exemptions or exclusions,” reads the brief co-written by Kenneth Starr, dean of Pepperdine University’s law school and the former independent counsel who investigated President Bill Clinton.

Both Brown and gay rights groups maintain that the gay marriage ban may not be applied retroactively.

The Supreme Court could hear arguments in the litigation as soon as March. The measure’s backers announced Friday that Starr, a former federal judge and U.S. solicitor general, had signed on as their lead counsel and would argue the cases.

The new brief provides a preview of how Proposition 8’s supporters plan to defend the measure. It asserts that the Supreme Court lacks the authority or historical precedent to throw out Proposition 8.

“For this court to rule otherwise would be to tear asunder a lavish body of jurisprudence,” the court papers state. “That body of decisional law commands judges — as servants of the people — to bow to the will of those whom they serve — even if the substantive result of what people have wrought in constitution-amending is deemed unenlightened.”

Starr declined to discuss the arguments he and co-counsel Andrew Pugno advanced Friday. In an interview, Pugno said his clients’ position on the same-sex marriages sanctioned in California between June 16 and Nov. 4 was not initiated by the Proposition 8 backers.

Rather, Pugno said the brief was a response to a question the court’s seven justices posed to lawyers on both sides when they agreed to take up the challenge to Proposition 8 brought by gay rights advocates.

“The people passed Prop. 8,” he said. “We are defending that.”

Jennifer Pizer, a lawyer with the gay rights firm Lambda Legal who is helping represent gay and lesbian couples in the effort to undo the ballot measure, said Friday that vacating a marriage carries a host of legal repercussions and can not be accomplished so easily.

“This purported change exists in a landscape of a legal system that has rules, and those rules include the idea that changes in law affect people moving forward and do not apply looking backward to take away the vested rights people have,” said Pizer, who recently married her longtime female partner.

The cases are Strauss v. Horton, S168047; City and County of San Francisco v. Horton, S168078; and Tyler v. State of California, S168066.

Obama’s First Test, Will He Stand Up To Gays?

Does President Elect Obama have the mettle to make a decision and stick with it?

Obama has chosen Rick Warren, the senior pastor of Saddleback Church in southern California to deliver the invocation at his inauguration. 

Obama’s choice has ignited a rash of criticism from gays who are seeking to oust Warren from the ceremony because of his support for Proposition 8 in California.

If Obama caves into their demands, it will be difficult to imagine him advocating for America  against global competitors or enemies. This is not a litmus test on gay rights as the homosexual community would have you believe, but a test of Obama’s character. Any decision he makes as President will anger someone, and we are watching to see if he has the courage of his convictions.

California Supreme Court to Review Prop 8

California’s Supreme Court has agreed to review the ban and to hear legal challenges that have been “filed by groups of same-sex couples, a gay rights body and a group of local governments”.

The California Supreme Court accepted three lawsuits seeking to nullify Proposition 8, a voter-approved constitutional amendment that overruled the court’s decision in May that legalized gay marriage.

As soon as Proposition 8 passed two weeks ago—with 52 percent of the vote—three lawsuits were filed challenging the legality of the law. Among the petitioners were the cities of San Francisco and Los Angeles, along with several counties in the Bay Area and 44 members of the state Legislature. Earlier this week, Jerry Brown, the state’s attorney general, who is tasked with defending the new law, agreed with the petitioners that the case merited the court’s attention.

All three cases claim the measure abridges the civil rights of a vulnerable minority group. They argue that voters alone did not have the authority to enact such a significant constitutional change.

As is its custom when it takes up cases, the court did not elaborate on its decision.

Along with the gay rights groups and local governments petitioning to overturn the ban, the measure’s sponsors and Attorney General Jerry Brown had urged the Supreme Court to consider whether Proposition 8 passes legal muster.

The court directed Brown and lawyers for the Yes on 8 campaign to submit their arguments for why the ballot initiative should not be nullified by Dec. 19. It said lawyers for the plaintiffs, who include same-sex couples who did not wed before the election, must respond before Jan. 5. Oral arguments could be scheduled as early as March, according to court spokeswoman Lynn Holton.