Posted on 11/24/2008 7:58:26 AM PST by SmithL
The group that persuaded California voters this month to pass Proposition 8, which bans same-sex marriage, now is fighting its friends as well as its foes.
Other conservative groups that loudly backed Prop. 8 are being targeted as too extreme and off-putting by ProtectMarriage.com, which put the constitutional amendment on the Nov. 4 ballot and hopes to help persuade the state Supreme Court to uphold the measure.
"We represent the people who got things done, who got Prop. 8 passed," said Andrew Pugno, general counsel for the Yes on Prop. 8 campaign. "An important part of defending Prop. 8 is eliminating arguments not helpful to our concerns."
Pugno, for example, persuaded the Supreme Court last week to bar the Campaign for California Families from intervening in the court case over the validity of Prop. 8 and the same-sex marriage ban.
"That organization represents the extreme fringe and is not representative of the coalition that got it passed," Pugno said. "They didn't even support Prop. 8 until sometime in the summer."
People associated with the group didn't expect the Prop. 8 campaign's efforts to push them to the sidelines.
"I'm surprised, because we've litigated beside each other for 4 1/2 years" in the unsuccessful effort to keep the Supreme Court from overturning Prop. 22 same-sex marriage ban in 2000, said Mathew Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel, which represents the Campaign for California Families. "We have the same goal, which is to defend Prop. 8."
The group, now known as the Campaign for Children and Families, is run by Randy Thomasson, who for years has been one of California's most visible opponents of gay rights and what he bills as "the homosexual agenda."
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
The issue before the court is NOT “marriage” it is the METHOD USED TO PASS THE REFERENDUM.
Pounding on a podium and talking about marriage itself is not a valid legal issue before the court.
Valid Question before the court is:
Did the court adequatly review the amendment before allowing it on the ballot?
Is this a change to the contitution or just an amendment to the constitution?
When the court said homosexuals have a “right to marry” was the court adding to the constitution? if that is so, then the amendment should NOT have been granted clearance to appear to the voters.
The court needs to be focused on their INCONSISTENT positions.
The people did speak, and this is an issue of whether or not a third party can file an amicus brief. When they petition to file an amicus brief they have to identify what they would be adding to the conversation.
Remember the issue is NOT homosexual marriage, it is procedure.
Well stated - but as usual FUD (fear uncertainty and doubt) is the first and last option for the left who have been denied what they want.
ah the divide and conquer route it seems
they know that while we are together they can be beaten all the time so they now try to divide the people.
san freako you lost, it is not normal and the people do not buy your perverted agenda
Unfortunately, there is some division within the ranks. Not nearly as much as our lib friends would like to believe, but it does exist. There is a small but very vocal minority of Evangelicals who have been seething over the fact that the gays have singled out the LDS church (Mormons) as a primary cause of their loss. These people see the LDS church as a bigger threat than the normalization of homosexuality so, they are extremely upset about all of the attention the church is getting. One poster here on FR claimed the only reason the church fought against gay marriage was to promote Mitt Romney for President in 2012. Combine all of that with the good publicity the 2002 Olympics generated and it hasn’t been a good time for those obsessed with criticizing the LDS church. So, you can understand the frustration.
Again, these people are few in numbers but they, like the radical gays who we are up against, will not be swayed by reason. I think Prop 8 has brought together, in a very good way, many religious communities in CA and elsewhere so, we don’t need to listen to, nor should we, the rantings of our own lunatic fringe and we can just let the libs fantasize about our coalition falling apart. Marriage is a holy institution, created by Him for His purposes. All people of faith, regardless of doctrinal differences, must rally around this sacred institution if we are to save it from those who would profane it for hate’s sake.
this should be based on law and it was done by the law and now it is law.
The court has no right to change this by law.
It is a wasted of time trying to argue with the left or the homo’s basing the argument on religion as they do not care for religion.
So the best argument seeing as they believe in nature and evolution is base the argument on that.
Nature intended a man and a woman to reproduce not two oft he same sex. now of course sex with the same sex might be entertaining for them and they might enjoy it but it does not give them the right to marry each other.
The constitution does not state this and the law does not state this for it it did then the same argument could and I ma sure will be used for a man and a dog, a woman and her son, a man and 15 wives.
A line has to be drawn and it was in CA amongst other states , now the homo’s do not like it but no one has took any right away from them even if they keep harping on about it.
They are acting like spoilt brats who are sulking because they never got their way or their agenda took a massive defeat for them.
They want marriage, then adoption then teaching it in schools.
We only have to look at MA to see how the homo agenda has took a turn for radical teaching in schools and brainwashing of our children
I actually agree with that
I am dumbfounded that there are some as you pointed out that have more hatred to the Mormon church than the homo or the homo agenda.
I remember talking to one person about Romney and the bile coming form them about him being a Mormon was staggering.
Romney was no my choice nor was any of the front runners but some of the bile I heard about him and his religion was staggering.
Things like they are not Christians, they are this and that
and I thought WOW.
The Mormon church did a great thing and I hope everyone can carry on to work together to defeat the moral decay and the homo agenda in the future.
it has been proved that once everyone is on the same page then we can defeat the homo agenda and their money plus the media who love and push their agenda.
It gives me a good sense of pride I suppose the word is that there ares till people out there who are not swayed by the likes of Ellen and Oprah but can make their own minds up .
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Thank you both very much.
It's not that simple.
If a referendum proposes a Constitutional amendment which violates an explicit right or other clear provision in the Constitution (as opposed to 'penumbras' or judicial fiat), then clearly the legislature must intervene.
Since perversions were not addressed in the original California Constitution, neither the CSC nor anyone else has the ability to invent a 'violation' to an arguable "right" which may or may not be redefined indefinitely in future decisions.
Yes, as a new citizen I’m also confused. Two years in a row (2006 and 2007) the “people”, through their elected representatives in Sacramento, passed a law to legalize gay marriage. Yet each time the will of the “people” was overturned by one man — the Governator. What’s up with that? So which branch really expresses the “will” of the “people”? Is it 1) their elected representative government, or 2) their ballot initiatives, or 3) their legal judicial system, or 4) their governor?? It seems to me this country has too many mechanisms that all work in conflict with each other, yet they are all “legal”. Is that what democracy refers to as “checks and balances”? And if you argue that the ballot initives always take priority, then why don’t we just do away with representative government and the courts, and put every decision to a bollot? Just asking ...
Thanks for that explanation, I was also getting confused.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.