doma by liaoxiuli2

VIEWS: 5 PAGES: 35

									           DOMA, Federal Judges, and the Gay Agenda

In this essay, facts of the cases, verbatim statements, judge's comments,
orders, etc. are written in black. Insights and comments by this writer
are in blue. Words of wisdom from America‘s Founding Fathers and
others will appear in red.

Marriage Defined:
… he which made them at the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND
FEMALE, and said, FOR THIS CAUSE SHALL A MAN LEAVE FATHER
AND MOTHER, AND SHALL CLEAVE TO HIS WIFE: AND THEY TWAIN
SHALL BE ONE FLESH…. What therefore God hath joined together, let
not man put asunder. Jesus, The Bible, Matthew 19:4-6.

A simplified breakdown of the definition of marriage for judges and
others who pretend to alter this unalterable definition:

…he, which made them –their Creator, the only giver of inalienable
rights,
at the beginning – history of marriage - ever since the human race began,
MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, - two distinctly different genders.
and said, FOR THIS CAUSE – because they are different genders,
SHALL A MAN – not a woman
LEAVE – to seek a wife because she is of different gender,
FATHER AND MOTHER, - his biological parents,
AND SHALL CLEAVE TO HIS WIFE: - because she is of different gender,
(his wife, not her wife, there is no such thing as a male wife or a female
husband.)
AND THEY TWAIN – they two (different gender), not one (same gender),
SHALL BE ONE FLESH – become as one, in opposite-gender marriage.
What therefore God hath joined together, - God, not ―the state,‖ is
matchmaker.
let not man put asunder. – Don‘t mess with marriage, according to ―the
laws of nature and nature‘s God.‖

This clear and concise definition of marriage is two thousand years old,
and has been the only legitimate definition of marriage since the human
race began. It is a necessary component of Western civilization. It has
been recognized as the only definition of marriage in America for the four
centuries since the first European settlement of the North American
continent. Marriage, correctly defined, and its resulting family, is the
most basic unit of government, after individual self-discipline. It is
essential to the continued existence of our free, self-governing Republic.

Jesus‘ definition of marriage birthed America‘s ―hero generation.‖ When
our federal judges declared war on Christianity, the ―radical generation‖
was born to take control of our institutions, including our government.

Jesus‘ definition was the only definition of marriage in America before
federal judges lost their way in their judge-made legal jungle. In just one
court case among many, California Proposition 8, it took 228 pages to
record the legalese wrangling and psycho/sociological nonsense in
federal court to un-define marriage. Jesus took only 48 words to define
it eternally:

Since mid twentieth century, however, when the U. S. Supreme Court
declared war on the Faith of our Fathers, it has supposedly been
unconstitutional to repeat in public any words of wisdom uttered by
Jesus Christ. Those who wish to reject Jesus Christ may do so, of
course, and take their chances on judgment day. However, if we wish to
remain free, we at least must keep common sense in our common law.
Sufficient for this end would be as easy as conscientiously ruling by the
motto of our U. S. Department of Justice:

   THE COMMON LAW IS THE WILL OF MANKIND ISSUING FROM THE
   LIFE OF THE PEOPLE.

But as you will see in a later paragraph Obama‘s ―Czar‖ presently in
charge of this department does not think this way.

The life of the American people, concerning marriage, is abundantly
clear, even to renegade lawyers and judges. But in the revisionist world
of social and political correctness, common sense (and the Constitution)
is frequently left outside the courthouse door.        Incredibly these
sophomores prefer to reshape the Constitution to accommodate a small
but loud-mouthed minority.

So what is DOMA, The Defense of Marriage Act, and what is it all about?

Background:
1993     The Hawaii State Supreme Court opined that the state‘s refusal
to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples is discriminatory.

1996 Aware that the Hawaii Court decision signaled a new threat in the
decades-long assault on traditional opposite-sex marriage, Congress
passed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). It was understood that
legalizing same-sex ―marriage‖ in Hawaii would have a devastating effect
upon the laws of other states, federal laws, the institution of marriage,
traditional morality, and state sovereignty. To head off such far-reaching
destruction of the American way of life, Congress passed the Defense of
Marriage Act in 1996.
Section 1 of DOMA defines marriage as the legal union between a man
and a woman:

   In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling,
   regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus
   and agencies of the United States, the word ―marriage‖ means only a
   legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife,
   and the word ―spouse‖ refers only to a person of the opposite sex who
   is a husband or a wife.

Section 2 states that, should a state legalize same-sex ―marriage,‖ no
other state or entity of the federal government will be required to honor
such a state law:

      No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or
      Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act,
      record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory,
      possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between
      persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under
      the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe,
      or a right or claim arising from such relationship.

Congress, the elected representatives of the American people, passed the
Defense of Marriage Act overwhelmingly. The vote in the House was 342-
67, in the Senate 85-14.

1998 Hawaii voters approved an amendment to the Hawaii State
Constitution by which the State Legislature enacted a law banning same-
sex marriage. Seeing the far-reaching destructive nature of same-sex
―marriage,‖ other states soon followed Hawaii‘s example. Wikipedia on
the Internet supplies the following list of states banning same-sex
marriage and the percentage of supporting votes:

By amendment of state constitutions -

1998 Hawaii 69%; Alaska 68%
2000 Nevada 69%; Nebraska 70%;
2004 Mississippi 86%; Missouri 72%; Montana 67%; Oregon 57%;
     Arkansas 75%; Georgia 76%; Kentucky 75%; Louisiana 78%; North
     Dakota 73%; Ohio 62%; Oklahoma 76%; Utah 66%; Michigan 59%
2005 Kansas 70%; Texas 76%;
2006 Colorado 56%; Tennessee 81%; Alabama 81%; Idaho 63%; South
     Carolina 78%; South Dakota 52%; Wisconsin 59%; Virginia 57%
2008 Arizona 56%; California 52%; Florida 62%
By state statutes –

Delaware – Illinois – Indiana – Maine – Maryland – Minnesota – North
Carolina – Pennsylvania – Puerto Rico – Washington – West Virginia -
Wyoming

Forty-four out of fifty states, with overwhelming majorities, and the
Congress of the United States with overwhelming majorities! How can
We the People say it any plainer, ―Don‘t mess with marriage, according to
‗the laws of Nature and Natures God‘.‖ Any yet the gay agenda is being
pushed onward, undaunted, unashamed.

2008 Three states have no statutes concerning same-sex ―marriage.‖
     Mew Mexico – New- York – Rhode Island

      Five states and the District of Columbia allow same-sex ―marriage.‖
      Massachusetts – Connecticut – Iowa – Vermont – New Hampshire

                      CALIFORNIA PROPOSITION 8

Introduction:     Following is the Federal court case that overturned
California‘s Proposition 8, an amendment to California‘s State
Constitution, confirming the long-standing, universally recognized, legal
definition of marriage. Here the case is condensed, deleting voluminous
and tedious legal proceedings, confirmation of witnesses, background of
lawyers, sociologists, psychologists, etc., many references to other court
cases, etc., etc.

2009 The Case: August 4, 2009. In the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California- Judge Vaughn R. Walker Presiding.

On Trial: California Proposition 8 regarding the legal definition of
marriage.

Background of the Case: On November 5, 2008, following the lead of the
people of 43 other states, over five million (52.5% of California voters)
approved California Proposition 8, thereby adding the following fourteen
words to the California State Constitution:

"Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in
California."

Later the California Supreme Court ruled 6 to 1 to uphold Proposition 8.
Note that it took only 9 months after the people enacted Proposition 8 for
a federal court to accept a case challenging the Constitutionality of the
institution of marriage, as it has been understood and lived in Western
civilization for two thousand years.

Plaintiffs: Two Lesbians and two Gay Men who sue to overturn
Proposition 8, so that the law must redefine marriage to legalize marriage
of same-sex partners.
Note: On April 26, 2011, after his resignation from the bench to return to
private law practice, Judge Walker revealed to San Francisco Chronicle
reporters that he has been in a homosexual relationship for ten years
with a San Francisco doctor.
Can a homosexual judge reach an unbiased decision in a case
demanding gay marriage?

Also note that Judge Walker was first nominated by President Ronald
Reagan, re-nominated by President George W. Bush, Sr., and
unanimously confirmed by the Republican U. S. Senate.

Defendants: The Governor and Attorney General of California; Other
California Officials; The City and County of San Francisco.

Order of Proceedings:
    Pretrial Proceedings and Trial Evidence
    Determine Credibility of Witnesses
    Findings of Fact
    Conclusions of Law
    Judges Order

The Judge must decide:

1. Whether any evidence shows that California has an interest in
differentiating between same-sex and opposite-sex unions.
Wrong question. On trial is traditional marriage, not civil unions.

2. Whether the evidence shows that Proposition 8 enacted a private
moral viewpoint without advancing a legitimate government interest.
Another sleight of hand with the English language. Here ―private moral
viewpoint‖ actually means the traditional Christian definition of marriage
and family, as becomes evident in trial proceedings.

The Plaintiffs‘ Challenge:

Plaintiffs challenge a November 2008 voter-enacted amendment to the
California Constitution. In its entirety, Proposition 8 provides:
―Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in
California.‖

Early in the record of this case Judge Walker‘s conclusion is recorded:
Having considered the trial evidence and the arguments of counsel, the
court pursuant to FRCP 52(a) finds that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional
and that its enforcement must be enjoined.
Thus the judge single handedly overrules the will of the people of
California and 43 other states, the California State Supreme Court, and
the Defense of Marriage Act enacted by the Congress of the United
States. So let‘s look further into the case and see what we find:

Plaintiffs allege that Proposition 8 deprives them of due process and of
equal protection of the laws contrary to the Fourteenth Amendment and
that its enforcement by state officials violates 42 USC § 1983.
Another of many judicial perversions of the Civil War Amendments
intended only to free the slaves and grant them the rights of citizenship.
The Civil War Amendments are in bad need of Constitutional redefinition
to prevent judicial social engineers from ―swallowing the Bill of Rights
into the Fourteenth Amendment.‖ African Americans should be deeply
offended when the Court distorts their Constitutional Amendment to
enforce ―rights‖ which these good people so soundly abhor.

Plaintiffs are two couples. Kristin Perry and Sandra Stier (two lesbians
who desire to change their registered same-sex union to marriage status)
reside in Berkeley, California and raise four children together. Jeffrey
Zarrillo and Paul Katami (two gay men who desire to change their same-
sex union to marriage status) reside in Burbank, California. Plaintiffs
seek to marry their partners, and have been denied marriage licenses by
their respective county authorities on the basis of Proposition 8.

August 2009. Doc #160 (minute entry).
PLAINTIFFS‘ CASE AGAINST PROPOSITION 8
The Due Process Clause provides that no ―State [shall] deprive any
person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.‖ US Const
Amend XIV, § 1.

Plaintiffs contend that the freedom to marry the person of one‘s choice is
a fundamental right protected by the Due Process Clause and that
Proposition 8 violates this fundamental right because: 1. It prevents each
plaintiff from marrying the person of his or her choice;
For the official definition of fundamental rights, please refer to our
Declaration of Independence, our nation‘s charter and right to existence
among the nations of the world. ―We hold these Truths to be self-
evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their
Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life,
Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness-That to secure these Rights,
Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from
the Consent of the Governed,….‖
This case very clearly illustrates the potential tyranny of ruling by the
Constitution alone, disconnected from the Declaration. Reprobate minds
can easily distort the English language so as to make the Constitution
say the very opposite of its common-sense meaning. One black-robed
despot brazenly declared that the Constitution is what the judge says it
is.

We Americans have long enjoyed liberties endowed by our Creator - not
granted by government. When Pursuit of Happiness becomes taking
liberties that have not been bestowed by our Creator, such pursuits is
licentiousness, not ―unalienable rights.‖

Warning: ―…. we may find by our own unhappy experience, that there is
a natural and necessary progression…. that arbitrary power is most
easily established on the ruins of liberty abused to licentiousness.‖
George Washington, “The Father of our Country.”

To understand the source of the term ―endowed by their Creator‖ go to
the We Hold These Truths page on this website and download the book
free of charge.

This case not only slights the Creator but also blatantly rules against the
consent of the governed. It is the Court‘s perversion of the Fourteenth
Amendment that allows this judicial tyranny, allowing judges to impose
their concept of social and political correctness upon the people against
their consent.

To understand the principles of American civil government contained in
our Declaration of Independence go to the Founding Documents page on
this website - also the Two Declarations page.

PROPONENTS‘ DEFENSE OF PROPOSITION 8
Proponents organized the official campaign to pass Proposition 8, known
as ProtectMarriage.com —— Yes on 8, a Project of California Renewal
(―Protect Marriage‖). Proponents formed and managed the Protect
Marriage campaign and ensured its efforts to pass Proposition 8
complied with California election law. See FF13-17 below. After
orchestrating the successful Proposition 8 campaign, proponents
intervened in this lawsuit and provided a vigorous defense of the
constitutionality of Proposition 8.
The ballot argument submitted to the voters summarizes proponents‘
arguments in favor of Proposition 8 during the 2008 campaign. The
argument states: Proposition 8 is simple and straightforward.
       Proposition 8 is about preserving marriage; it‘s not an attack on
         the gay lifestyle.
       It protects our children from being taught in public schools that
         ―same-sex marriage‖ is the same as traditional marriage.
       While death, divorce, or other circumstances may prevent the
         ideal, the best situation for a child is to be raised by a married
         mother and father.
       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. We should not accept a court decision
         that may result in public schools teaching our own kids that
         gay marriage is ok.
       [W]hile gays have the right to their private lives, they do not
         have the right to redefine marriage for everyone else. PX00011
         California Voter Information Guide, California General Election,
         Tuesday, November 4, 2008 at PM 003365 (emphasis in
         original).
These arguments for Proposition 8 are not fears of what might happen.
They are abuses of the Constitutional rights of teachers, children,
parents, ministers of the gospel and others that have already been
happening for some time all across the country. Citizen actions such as
Proposition 8 have been made necessary simply because of abuses by
tinhorn tyrants carrying out the edicts of federal courts.

A state‘s interest in an enactment must of course be secular in nature.
The state does not have an interest in enforcing private moral or religious
beliefs without an accompanying secular purpose. See Lawrence v Texas,
539 US 558,571 (2003); see also Everson v Board of Education of Ewing
Township, 330 US 1, 15 (1947).
Please pay close attention to this declaration by the judge. It contains in
a few concise words the what, the who, the why, and the how the once
sure foundation of our Creator-endowed liberties is being dismantled by
the fools that rule.

First of all, the judge separates ―the state‖ from the people. For Heaven‘s
sake, who are ―the state?‖ Is not ―the state‖ simply the people; or is the
judge declaring that ―the state‖ is the ruling elite that runs our
government? If ―the state‖ is the government, then ―the state‖ is still the
people – the government of the people, by the people, for the people.
―The state‖ then must of necessity be the people, governed primarily by
themselves at the ballot box, secondarily by their elected representatives,
thirdly by their elected President, and lastly (but not finally) by their
appointed judges, who are subject to impeachment. America‘s Founding
Fathers would be appalled:

You seem . . . to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all
constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine, indeed, and one
which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Thomas
Jefferson. (“Author of the Declaration of Independence,” Third President of
the United States)

This ―dangerous doctrine‖ has now been slovenly accepted by the
Presidents, by the Congress, by our legal system and, worst of all, by We
the People of these once free United States.

This makes the Judiciary dept. paramount in fact to the Legislature,
which was never intended, and can never be proper. James Madison
(“Chief Architect of the Constitution,” Fourth President of the United
States)

The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that, to
whatever hands confided, with corruptions of time and party, its
members would become despots. Thomas Jefferson. (“Author of the
Declaration of Independence,”)

Perhaps it is politics as usual, or pass-the-buck cowardice that motivates
the Presidents and Congress to accept the federal judges as the final
arbiter of politically risky questions. Let the judges do the dirty work.
After all, we have an upcoming election to win – judges don’t. Or possibly
the recent Presidents and Congresses are simply in agreement with the
recent despotic Courts. In any case it is clear that it is high time for a
general housecleaning in all branches of our federal government,
hopefully returning enough character to Washington, D. C. to once again
see some common-sense order in the Court.

Warning: The germ of dissolution of our federal government is in . . . the
federal judiciary; an irresponsible body [for impeachment is scarcely a
scarecrow] working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today
and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over
the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped from the States.
Thomas Jefferson (“Author of the Declaration of Independence,”)
And this is the sorry State of the Union as we enter the twenty-first
century.

Next, the judge declares that an enactment must be secular in nature.
This judge adds ―of course‖ as if his decree is not debatable.
Having erroneously separated ―the state‖ from the people, the judge
proceeds to define the interest of ―the state‖ as being secular only.
Actually, as explained above, ―the state‖ is nothing more or less than the
people in civil compact with one another. No people – no state. So then,
the real question is, What is the interest of the people? Regarding the
official definition of marriage, the people in 85% of the states, as well as
the Congress of the United States, have answered that question
emphatically.

The judge goes on:
The state does not have an interest in enforcing private moral or religious
beliefs without an accompanying secular purpose. See Lawrence v Texas,
539 US 558,571 (2003); see also Everson v Board of Education of Ewing
Township, 330 US 1, 15 (1947).
It is fair to say that ―the state‖, that is to say the people, have no interest
in enforcing ―private moral or religious beliefs‖ upon anyone for any
purpose whatsoever. (An exception may be made here for that very small
segment of the people who adhere to the Islamic religion.)

Having foolishly set apart ―the state‖ as a separate entity from the people,
the judge is actually saying that the government of the United States is
based upon a purely secular foundation. This simply cannot be true
unless the people are purely secular in worldview. So then, what is the
role of the peoples‘ religious faith as it relates to their civil government?

Before any man can be considered as a member of Civil Society, he must
be considered as a subject of the Governour of the Universe. . . . Religion
. . . [is] the basis and Foundation of Government. James Madison, (Chief
Architect of the Constitution, Fourth President of the United States)

Note: To understand what Madison meant by ―Governour of the
Universe,‖ go to the We Hold These Truths page on this website and
download the book free of charge.

Madison‘s statement that religion is the basis and Foundation of
Government must be true. Can governments derive ― their just Powers
from the Consent of the Governed….‖ if they rule against the peoples‘
predominant religion? Islamic nations understand that they cannot, so
they enforce the Muslim religion upon their people with an iron hand.
Christianity, on the other hand, does not allow for this sort of tyranny.
Christianity is a ―whosoever will‖ faith. It is this fact alone that has
made the people of the United States historically the most free, the most
envied people in the world.
So what was the religious faith of the American people and the faith of
America‘s Founding Fathers at the time the Constitution was written? At
that time a full 99 percent of the American people professed Christianity
as their religion. But upon what foundation did they establish the
government of the United States? Let the Court itself answer this
question:

    ―Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be built upon and
    embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible
    that it should be otherwise; and in this sense and to this extent our
    civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian…. This is
    historically true. From the discovery of this continent to the present
    hour, there is a single voice making this affirmation…These are not
    individual sayings, declarations of private persons: they are organic
    utterances; they speak the voice of the entire people…. Christianity
    is, and always has been, a part of the common law...not Christianity
    with an established church…. but Christianity with liberty of
    conscience to all men… These, and many other matters which might
    be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of
    organic utterances that this is a Christian nation…we find
    everywhere a clear recognition of the same truth.‖ United States
    Supreme Court, 1892, Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States.

So there you have it (if I may be permitted to use the vernacular)
―straight from the horse‘s mouth.‖ Our free self-governing Republic, the
United States of America, is built upon the firm foundation of the
precepts of the Bible and ―the general principles of Christianity?‖

    The highest glory of the American Revolution was this; it connected
    in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the
    principles of Christianity. John Quincy Adams, 1821, Sixth President
    of the United States, Son of John and Abigail Adams, Second
    President of the United States.

So what has happened to that ―indissoluble bond?‖ Why have federal
judges abandoned the plain truth so clearly understood by the Court as
well as the people when America was free, when America was great?
Why do they keep building despotic case upon case, citing only decisions
of Humanist Courts of the twentieth century? Why the Courts‘ war on
the Faith of our Fathers?

The answer is elusive, debated, often concealed and deceptive, but quite
simple. Around the middle of the twentieth century the Court, captured
by an alien religion, broke out of its Tenth Amendment bounds, and
began its wicked destruction of the solid foundation of our Creator-
endowed liberties, and started to establish a new foundation of law and
government based upon their new-found religion - Secular Humanism.

A religion, you say? Yes, Indeed. Humanist Manifesto I, 1933, boldly
defined Humanism as a religion. The Court itself, in a number of cases,
has confirmed this religious definition of Humanism. Also, in the 1950‘s
Humanists, through the Court, obtained tax-exempt status as religious
organizations.

To view a number of Court cases defining Humanism as a religion go to
GOOGLE on the Internet and search Secular Humanism is a Religion. If
that doesn‘t work try
http://vftonline.org/Patriarchy/definitions/humanism_religion.htm

Humanist Manifesto I also defined the purpose and program of
Humanism as the intelligent evaluation, transformation, control, and
direction of our associations and institutions. By the end of the
twentieth century, the ―purpose and program‖ of Humanism was pretty
near complete in our institutions, including the Supreme Court of the
United States and all the regional federal courts.

Judge Walker has shown the Court‘s hand. Their ―private moral or
religious beliefs‖ is Secular Humanism.            In a nutshell Secular
Humanism is an anti-Creator, anti-Bible, anti-Christian, man-worshiping
religion, without any moral compass except the corruptible nature of
man. Thus Humanism is a made-to-order religion for wannabe tyrants,
especially judges. Humanism‘s ―situational ethics‖ gives the judges the
power to inflict their ―private moral or religious beliefs‖ upon the people
with accountability to no one. And that is exactly what has happened
and what continues to happen in this and many other cases before our
federal courts today.

Considering themselves to be ―the state,‖ the federal judges, not the
people, are the ones guilty of enforcing their ―private moral or religious
beliefs‖ upon the people. This case and many others - some past, others
ongoing - is nothing less than our federal courts‘ continuing war on the
gracious Gospel of Jesus Christ, and thereby the destruction of the sure
foundation of our Creator-endowed liberties.

To understand the religious doctrines and the ultimate goal of
Humanism go to the We Hold These Truths page on this website and
download the book free of charge.

Some Final Warnings:
―Our Constitution was made for a moral and religious people. It is
wholly inadequate to the government of any other.‖ ―Have you ever
found in history one single example of a Nation thoroughly Corrupted,
that was afterward restored to Virtue, and without Virtue, there can be
no political Liberty?‖    John Adams, Signer of the Declaration of
Independence, Second President of the United States.

I see . . . with the deepest affliction the rapid strides with which the
federal branch of our government is advancing towards . . . the
consolidation in itself of all powers, foreign and domestic . . . The great
object of my fear is the federal judiciary. That body, like gravity, ever
acting with noiseless foot and unalarming advance, gaining ground step
by step, and holding what it gains, is engulfing insidiously the special
governments into the jaws of that which feeds them. Thomas Jefferson.
(“Author of the Declaration of Independence,” Third President of the United
States)

To paraphrase Jefferson, it is obvious that impeachment does not scare
any crows. With wimpy Presidents and Congresses (in regard to the
Supreme Court) that have been our lot for so long, and with life tenancy
for federal judges, the black-robed tyrants among them are accountable
to no one. Through ignorance, apathy, collusion, or partisan politics our
recent Presidents and Congresses have allowed the federal courts to
effectively make laws, interpret their own court-made laws, and enforce
their own court-made laws. This is a serious and dangerous violation of
the principle of division of powers between the three branches of our
federal government.

The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that, to
whatever hands confided, with corruptions of time and party, its
members would become despots. Thomas Jefferson. (“Author of the
Declaration of Independence,” Third President of the United States.)

It has now become necessary to form a We-the-People non-partisan
organization with chapters from the precinct to the national level – its
purpose to recruit candidates and elect Presidents and members of
Congress who are committed to undo the damage done by the religious
Humanists on the federal courts – to initiate Constitutional Amendments
to prevent future judicial tyranny – to make impeachment more than a
―scarecrow.‖

Now back to the particulars of the California Proposition 8 case:
All four plaintiffs testified that they wished to marry their partners, and
all four gave similar reasons. Zarrillo wishes to marry Katami because
marriage has a ―special meaning‖ that would alter their relationships
with family and others.            Zarrillo described daily struggles that arise
because he is unable to marry Katami or refer to Katami as his husband.
Tr 84:1-17. Zarrillo described an instance when he and Katami went to a
bank to open a joint account, and ―it was certainly an awkward situation
walking to the bank and saying, ‗My partner and I want to open a joint
bank account,‘ and hearing, you know, ‗Is it a business account? A
partnership?‘ It would just be a lot easier to describe the situation --
might not make it less awkward for those individuals, but it would make
it - crystallize it more by being able to say ‗My husband and I are here to
open a bank account.‘‖
―My husband and I,‖ coming from another male? Would this not raise
even more eyebrows?

Id. To Katami, marriage to Zarrillo would solidify their relationship and
provide them the foundation they seek to raise a family together,
explaining that for them, ―the timeline has always been marriage first,
before family.‖ Tr 89:17-18.
Where will they get the children that they propose to raise?

Perry testified that marriage would provide her what she wants most in
life: a stable relationship with Stier, the woman she loves and with whom
she has built a life and a family. To Perry, marriage would provide access
to the language to describe her relationship with Stier: ―I‘m a 45-year-old
woman. I have been in love with a woman for 10 years and I don‘t have a
word to tell anybody about that.‖ Tr 154:20-23. Stier explained that
marrying Perry would make them feel included ―in the social fabric.‖
Unfortunately ―feeling‖ something does not make it a reality.

Then follows lengthy arguments regarding same-sex marriage, pro and
con, by ―experts‖ (psychologists, sociologists, social epidemiologist,
historian, economist, political scientist)

Plaintiffs‘ experts (?) testified that no meaningful differences exist
between same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples.
The ability to continue the existence of the human race seems to be
pretty meaningful. Such ―experts‖ as exist are Moms and Dads, raising
their own kids that they brought into the world - don‘t you think?

Segura (one of the ―experts‖) testified that negative stereotypes about
gays and lesbians inhibit political compromise with other groups: ―It‘s
very difficult to engage in the give-and take of the legislative process
when I think you are an inherently bad person. That‘s just not the basis
for compromise and negotiation in the political process.‖ Tr 1561:6-9
Segura identified religion as the chief obstacle to gay and lesbian political
advances.
Sorry, Segura, some things are simply not negotiable, including
marriage, Moms, Dads, the kids, the family, God, the Bible, motherhood
and apple pie.
You could not accomplish your devious goal through the legislative
process – the Constitutional procedure for making, altering, or revoking
laws. So for half a century now wicked organizations have been running
to the courts, where they have found renegade Humanist judges all too
willing to make a law for them and inflict it upon the people, whom the
judges have effectively disenfranchised.

And incidentally, Segura, it is not religion that is the chief obstacle to the
gay agenda. It is our grandmother‘s Bible and the foundation of
American justice and liberty built upon it. Furthermore, if you had not
dulled you common sense with an overload of psychology and sociology,
you would have identified the Humanist religion of federal judges as
being the driving force behind the gay agenda.

The Judge speaks:
An initiative measure adopted by the voters deserves great respect. The
considered views and opinions of even the most highly qualified scholars
and experts seldom outweigh the determinations of the voters.
You seem to be getting the idea, your honor.

The judge continues:
When challenged, however, the voters‘ determinations must find at least
some support in evidence. This is especially so when those
determinations enact into law classifications of persons. Conjecture,
speculation and fears are not enough. Still less will the moral
disapprobation of a group or class of citizens suffice, no matter how large
the majority that shares that view. The evidence demonstrated beyond
serious reckoning that Proposition 8 finds support only in such
disapproval. As such, Proposition 8 is beyond the constitutional reach of
the voters or their representatives.
Incredible! This man, being a confessed homosexual, supposedly never
married a wife (of the female gender), never became a father, nor raised a
child. Yet he considers himself wiser than all the people throughout
civilized human history and wiser than the elected representatives of the
American people. With all due respect, your honor, you should have
never touched this case ―with a ten foot pole.‖

Then the court record continues with pages of tedious witness profiles,
qualifications, references to other court cases (all recent) etc. etc.

The Race Card:
When California became a state in 1850, marriage was understood to
require a husband and a wife. See Cal Const, Art XI § 14 (1849); In re
Marriage Cases, 183 P3d at 407. The states have always required the
parties to give their free consent to a marriage. Because slaves were
considered property of others at the time, they lacked the legal capacity
to consent and were thus unable to marry. After emancipation, former
slaves viewed their ability to marry as one of the most important new
rights they had gained. Tr 202:2-203:12 (Cott).
Is it likely that the former slaves were asking for ―same-sex‖ marriage?
Not likely. This foolishness is a very recent development, and African
Americans have had nothing to do with it. These good folks must be
―bone tired‖ of being used by everyone who has ―a bone to pick‖ with
their grandmother‘s Bible.

Natural-born gay?
(Katami: Katami has been a ―natural-born gay‖ ―as long as he can
remember.‖) (Herek: (One of the ―experts‖) PX0928…. contains a table
that reports data on approximately 2,200 people (a rather small
sampling) who responded to questions about how much choice they had
about being lesbian, gay or bisexual. Among gay men, 87 percent said
that they experienced no or little choice about their sexual orientation.
Among lesbians, 70 percent said that they had no or very little choice
about their sexual orientation.); Tr 2056:4-25

This data is invalid unless this sampling of ―people‖ included
heterosexuals as well as homosexuals. Assuming all were homosexuals,
at best this only means that somewhat less than 87 percent of gay men
said they had no choice at all, perhaps a small percentage said they had
a little choice, and at least 13 % deliberately chose the gay lifestyle.
Among lesbians somewhat less than 70 % said they had no choice at all,
perhaps a small percentage said they had a little choice, and at least 30
% deliberately chose the lesbian lifestyle. Not exactly irrefutable proof
that some are natural-born homosexuals, at best only that the majority
of homosexuals perceive that they had no choice.

Ryan Kendall‘s perception:
 (Kendall: ―When I was a little kid, I knew I liked other boys. But I didn‘t
realize that meant I was gay until I was, probably, 11 or 12 years old. * *
* I ended up looking up the word ‗homosexual‘ in the dictionary. And I
remember reading the definition[.] * * * and it slowly dawned on me that
that‘s what I was.‖);
All little boys relate to other little boys. All little girls relate to other little
girls. This does not mean that they ―natural-born gays.‖ They simply
have not reached sexual maturity. At 11 or 12 Kendall was challenged to
choose his sexual orientation. His choice was to look up the meaning of
‗homosexual‘ and choose the gay lifestyle.

Human experience reveals strong evidence that every person, saint or
sinner, is plagued by his or her own special overpowering temptation to
engage in some damaging, and therefore forbidden, activity. The Bible
indicates that this is true. ―…let us lay aside every weight, and the sin
that doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is
set before us….‖ The Bible, Hebrews 12:1.

Most likely these personal ―besetting sins‖ are more overpowering in the
category of sexual activity than in any other category. The Bible speaks
of ―inordinate affections,‖ which can be either homosexual or
heterosexual in nature. At the very time of this writing, the ex-governor
of California and a former Presidential candidate are in the news
concerning their ―inordinate affection.‖ Their ―inordinate affection‖ was of
a heterosexual nature, both having fathered a child in an extramarital
affair. Both men had experienced an overpowering temptation, but
nothing forced them to yield to that temptation. They did not exercise
their God-given ability to ―lay aside the sin that doth so easily beset
you...‖   They yielded to the temptation and did great damage to
themselves, their wives, all families involved and many others. And so it
must be also with ―inordinate affections‖ of a homosexual nature.

When a person engages in any activity that is pleasurable, that activity, if
not resisted, will be continued until it becomes a habit. If the habit is
continued, it will become addictive. This progression from first experience
to addiction works the same in perverse sexual activity as it works in the
consumption of alcohol and drugs. No one is born an alcoholic or drug
addict. No one is born addicted to perverse sexuality. We become what
we are by continuing a chosen course until it defines our physical,
psychological, and spiritual makeup.

If one sets his mind to it, harmful addictions can be overcome, including
addiction to perverse sexual practices. Tragically two generations have
been indoctrinated with the evil religious Humanist doctrine of
―situational and autonomous ethics.‖ In this Humanist world of ―I am
God‖ and ―If it feels good, do it‖ there is nothing to warn, ―That activity
will destroy you and others. Resist the temptation until it flees from
you.‖ In many cases this will require intense prayer and the help of God.

More pages of tedious reasoning and references to recent court cases
deleted.

Experience and Common Sense speak up:
From the court record: ―I‘m not a sociologist. I‘m not a psychologist. I‘m
just a human being but you don‘t need to be wearing a white coat to
know that kids need a mom and dad. I‘m a dad and I know that I provide
something different than my wife does in our family and my wife provides
something entirely different than I do in our family and both are vital.‖ …
―Skin color is morally trivial as you pointed out but sex is fundamental to
everything. There is no difference between a white or a black human
being but there‘s a big difference between a man and a woman.‖ …
Has anyone failed to notice this?

 ―[c]hildren need the chance to have both mother love and father love.
and that moms and dads, male and female, complement each other.
They don‘t bring to a marriage and to a family the same natural set of
skills and talents and abilities. They bring to children the blessing of
both masculinity and femininity.‖ .―Thank God for the difference between
men and women. In fact, the two genders were meant to complete each
other physically, emotionally, and in every other way. Also, both genders
are needed for a healthy home.‖ Amen.

Phony Baloney - Inevitable results denied:
In re Marriage Cases, 189 P3d at 451-452 (―[A]ffording same-sex couples
the opportunity to obtain the designation of marriage will not impinge
upon the religious freedom of any religious organization, official, or any
other person; no religion will be required to change its religious policies
or practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious officiant
will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her
religious beliefs.‖) (Citing Cal Const Art I, § 4);
Get real. They will be so required as soon as some gay couple runs to a
federal judge. And one or more wicked legal organizations will recruit a
gay couple for this very purpose. Six decades of ―spiritual wickedness in
high places‖ assures us that this tyranny will be repeated.

Hate Crime Laws:
(California Dept of Justice, Hate Crime in California, 2004-2008): From
2004 to 2008, between 17 and 20 percent of all hate crime offenses in
California were motivated by sexual orientation bias;
Put another way, between 80 and 83 percent of all hate crime offenses
were not motivated by sexual orientation bias. Therefore we do not need
special ―hate crime laws‖ for homosexuals or anyone else. We simply
enforce existing laws against criminal acts against person or property,
regardless of who the criminals and the victims are or whatever
motivated the crime. ―Hate crime laws‖ are part of the gay agenda, more
brambles to add to our existing legal jungle, more harassment of good
folks, more taxpayer money for the lawyer business, and more judicial
tedium ad infinitum.

Church bashing and the Church‘s response:
PX2547 (Nathanson Nov 12, 2009 Dep Tr 102:3-8: Religions teach that
homosexual relations are a sin and that contributes to gay bashing);
―Religions‖ must teach that homosexual relations are a sin if they are to
teach the Bible. Of course Nathanson is bashing the Bible, Christian
ministers and Orthodox Jews. Christian ministers and Orthodox Jewish
Rabbis, true to the Bible, teach that many hurtful activities are sins, but
neither remotely suggests that any sinners should be ―bashed.‖
 (Catholic Church views homosexuality as ―sinful.‖); PX2544 (video of
same); Tr 395:14-18 (Chauncey: Many clergy in churches considered
homosexuality a sin, preached against it and have led campaigns against
gay rights.);
And well they should have done, as there are no ―gay rights,‖ - only
―unalienable rights‖ ―endowed by (our) Creator‖ which apply to all.

PX2853 Proposition 8 Local Exit Polls - Election Center 2008, CNN at 8:
84 percent of people who attended church weekly voted in favor of
Proposition 8; Good for them.

PX0005 Leaflet, James L Garlow, We will avoid unproductive arguments
with those who, through the use of casuistry and rationalization, revise
biblical passages in order to condone the practice of homosexuality or
other sexual sins.‖; Some apostate ―church‖ leaders have done this.

PX0770 Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, ―Sacred Scripture
condemns homosexual acts as ‗a serious depravity.‘‖;
PX0301 Excerpts from Vatican Document on Legal Recognition of
Homosexual Unions (Nov22, 2009): There are absolutely no grounds for
considering homosexual unions to be ―in any way similar or even
remotely analogous to God‘s plan for marriage and family‖; ―homosexual
acts go against the natural moral law‖ and ―[u]nder no circumstances
can * * * be approved‖; ―[t]he homosexual inclination is * * *objectively
disordered and homosexual practices are sins gravely contrary to
chastity‖; ―[a]llowing children to be adopted by persons living in such
unions would actually mean doing violence to these children‖; and ―legal
recognition of homosexual unions * * * would mean * * * the approval of
deviant behavior.‖;
PX0168 Southern Baptist Convention, SBC Resolution, On Same-Sex
Marriage (June 2003): ―Legalizing ‗same-sex marriage‘ would convey a
societal approval of a homosexual lifestyle, which the Bible calls sinful
and dangerous both to the individuals involved and to society at large.‖;
Well said.

PX0771 Southern Baptist Convention, Resolution on President Clinton‘s
Gay and Lesbian Pride Month Proclamation (June 1999): ―The Bible
clearly teaches that homosexual behavior is an abomination and
shameful before God.‖; Was President Clinton really ―the moral leader of
the country‖ as he once claimed?

PX2839 Evangelical Presbyterian Church, Position Paper on
Homosexuality: ―[H]omosexual practice is a distortion of the image of God
as it is still reflected in fallen man, and a perversion of the sexual
relationship as God intended it to be.‖;
PX2840 Free Methodist Church : ―Homosexual behavior, as all sexual
deviation, is a perversion of God‘s created order.‖;
PX2842 The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod: ―The Lord teaches us
through His Word that homosexuality is a sinful distortion of His desire
that one man and one woman live together in marriage as husband and
wife.‖;
PX2844 Orthodox Church of America: ―Homosexuality is to be
approached as the result of humanity‘s rebellion against God.‖;
It is futile trying to make a Christian case in a Humanist court.
Nevertheless Christians and Bible based legal organizations must never
give up the fight for the Faith of our Fathers which established our
American system of justice and liberty, upon the precepts of
grandmother‘s Bible and ―the general principles of Christianity.‖

Yellow Dog politics:
Tr 2676:8-2678:24 (Miller: Miller agrees with his former statement that
―the religious characteristics of California‘s Democratic voters‖ explain
why so many Democrats voted for Barack Obama and also for
Proposition 8.).
This is no mystery to those who have worked in political campaigns.
Politicians call staunch political party loyalists, who always blindly vote
for candidates of their political party, ―Yellow Dog Democrats‖ or ―Yellow
Dog Republicans‖. These people are not given a second thought by
political candidates, knowing that their votes are already ―in the bag.‖
These people are guilty of blindly supporting issues and causes
abhorrent to their real values or religious convictions. If they wish to
contribute to good government, the must declare their independence of
political parties, learn the true character of candidates, and vote their
independent convictions.

So what happened in the California Proposition 8 election? Christians
who are ―Yellow Dog Democrats‖ voted for Barack Obama simply because
he is a Democrat. Proposition 8 is a non-partisan issue, so they voted
their religious convictions. They were ―Yellow Dog Democrat‖ for Obama,
but Christian for traditional marriage, although Obama is not.
Considering the many anti-Christian planks in the platform of the
Democrat Party, how a person can be both Christian and ―Yellow Dog
Democrat‖ is the real mystery.

Tr 538:15-539:10 (Chauncey: Chauncey is less optimistic now that
same-sex marriage will become common in the United States than he
was in 2004. Since 2004, when Chauncey wrote Why Marriage? The
History Shaping Today‘s Debate over Gay Equality, the majority of states
has enacted legislation or constitutional amendments that would
prohibit same-sex couples from marrying. That‘s encouraging.

Some have been enacted by legislative vote, but a tremendous number of
popular referenda have enacted these discriminatory measures.);
It is called ―government of the people, by the people, for the people,‖
Chauncey. May we see it's soon return to the late great United States of
America.

Tr 564:4-16 (Chauncey: The term ―the gay agenda‖ was mobilized
particularly effectively in the late 1980s and early 1990s in support of
initiatives designed to overturn gay rights laws. The term tries to
construct the idea of a unitary agenda and that picks up on long-
standing stereotypes.);
The term correctly describes what we have both seen and heard of
unified homosexual activists since the 1980s and 1990s, from the most
vile in-your-face demonstrations of every kind of sexual deviation, to
claptrap politicians, to the nice-looking out-of-the closet TV celebrities.
For Heaven‘s sake, is not ―don‘t ask, don‘t tell‖ the decent way, whatever
may be our sexual lifestyle?         At least that was regarded as the
respectable thing to do before the Humanist religion captured America,
and gave us the disgusting morass that our country is suffering today.
Why do these people feel they must parade their sexual activity in our
faces?

Yes, Chauncey, there is indeed a ―gay agenda.‖ It is part of the much
larger agenda of the I-am-God Humanist religion.

Tr 1563:5-1564:21 (Segura: ―[T]he American public is not very fond of
gays and lesbians.‖ Warmness scores for gays and lesbians are as much
as 16 to 20 points below the average score for religious, racial and ethnic
groups;
Warmness scores? How incredibly silly. Sociology gone bananas. Shall
we set our country‘s future course on ―warmness scores?‖ Or has our
federal courts already done so?

PX0513 Letter from Tam to ―friends‖: If same-sex marriage should
become the law of the land, ―Gay activists would target the big churches
and request to be married by their pastors. If the church refuse, they
would sue the church.‖
Absolutely. The ACLU and other Humanist ―civil rights‖ organizations
would see to it. And that‘s not all. Gays would conduct the most vicious
and disgusting demonstrations inside and outside such churches. Still
more. These vicious and disgusting demonstrations would be protected
by the federal courts. (see the Freedom of Speech (?) page on this
website, Woodbury Baptist Church case).
PX0116 Video, Massachusetts Parents Oppose Same-Sex Marriage: Robb
and Robin Wirthlin, Massachusetts parents, warn that redefining
marriage has an impact on every level of society, especially on children,
and claim that in Massachusetts homosexuality and gay marriage will
soon be taught and promoted in every subject, including math, reading,
social studies and spelling;
Recent experiences at public schools throughout the land strongly
indicate that this is exactly what will happen. This is part of the gay
agenda.

The campaign to pass Proposition 8 relied on stereotypes to show that
same-sex relationships are inferior to opposite-sex relationships.
Please stick to the subject.      On trial is traditional marriage, not
―relationships.‖

 PX1565 News Release, Protect Marriage, First Graders Taken to San
Francisco City Hall for Gay Wedding
(Oct 11, 2008): Proposition 8 campaign materials warn that unless
Proposition 8 passes, children will be exposed to indoctrination on gay
lifestyles. These materials invoke fears about the gay agenda.
Homosexual teachers, like homosexual judges, are eager to inflict the
minds of children with their unnatural sexual appetites. This first grade
field trip is an example of the ―gay agenda‖ in action. The gay agenda.
Don‘t fear it – stifle it. That is what the people of California and most
other states are saying, ―Live your life as you will, but don‘t mess with
marriage, according to ‗the laws of nature and nature‘s God.‘‖

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Under this heading follow pages of the federal judge‘s persuasive legal
reasoning in which he drags the question of same-sex marriage through
the Fourteenth Amendment, perverting that Amendment to elevate
homosexual cohabitation to the same legal status as opposite-sex
marriage.

The Race Card again.
When the Supreme Court invalidated race restrictions in Loving, the
definition of the right to marry did not change. 388 US at 12.
Nor did the Court challenge the time-tested Scriptural definition of
marriage as being a covenanted intimate union of a man and a woman.

Plaintiffs seek to have the state recognize their committed (homosexual)
relationships, and plaintiffs‘ relationships are consistent with the core of
the history, tradition and practice of marriage in the United States.
Isn‘t this stretching the truth a bit?
Zarrillo and Katami seek recognition from the state that their union is ―a
coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate
to the degree of being sacred.‖
Sorry, the God of the Bible can never make this kind of union sacred.
This surely must be known by this court, evidenced by the constant
bashing of the ―private morals or religious beliefs‖ of the people, i.e. their
Christian values.

PROPOSITION 8 IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE IT DENIES
PLAINTIFFS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT WITHOUT A LEGITIMATE (MUCH
LESS COMPELLING) REASON

That the majority of California voters supported Proposition 8 is
irrelevant, as ―fundamental rights may not be submitted to [a] vote; they
depend on the outcome of no elections.‖
Very true that fundamental rights may not be submitted to a vote; they
depend on the outcome of no elections, and We the People must submit
to that fact. However, for a right to be fundamental it must be ―endowed
by our Creator,‖ as plainly stated in our Declaration of Independence,
and not granted by ―the state,‖ that is to say by the people. Neither can
it be granted by federal judges presuming themselves to be ―the state.‖
Furthermore, no amount of legalistic acrobatics or psycho/sociological
nonsense can make the Fourteenth Amendment say that homosexuals
are endowed by their Creator with an inalienable right to marriage. No
such fundamental right exists. Therefore, the majority of California
voters supporting Proposition 8 is not irrelevant.

Warning: ―…. we may find by our own unhappy experience, that there is
a natural and necessary progression…. that arbitrary power is most
easily established on the ruins of liberty abused to licentiousness.‖
George Washington, “The Father of our Country.”

…. rather than being different, same-sex and opposite-sex unions are, for
all purposes relevant to California law, exactly the same. FF 47-50.
Is there no common sense in common law? Picture a man and a woman,
married to each other, standing opposite to two men (or two women)
joined in a same-sex union. Does anyone notice any difference? Place a
child or two with each couple. Does anyone still notice a difference?
These are obvious physical differences seen only by the eye. Although
not visible to the eye, there are many more very real differences in men
and women – physical, social, emotional, spiritual. ― Male and female,
created He them.‖ And God Almighty‘s infinite wisdom and love for his
creatures decrees that only those differences be united in Holy
Matrimony. Viva la difference!

―A constitution of government is addressed to the common sense of the
people, and never was designed for trials of logical skill, or visionary
speculation.‖  Joseph Story, Justice, U.S. Supreme Court, 1833

The evidence shows conclusively that moral and religious views form the
only basis for a belief that same-sex couples are different from opposite-
sex couples.
Repeat the above. Is there no common sense in common law? Picture a
man and a woman, married to each other, standing opposite to two men
(or two women) joined in a same-sex union. Does anyone notice any
difference? Place a child or two with each couple. Does anyone still
notice a difference? These are obvious physical differences seen only by
the eye. Although not visible to the eye, there are many more very real
differences in men and women – physical, social, emotional, spiritual.
―Male and female, created He them.‖ And God Almighty‘s infinite wisdom
and love for his creatures decrees that only those differences be united in
Holy Matrimony. Viva la difference!

Although ―moral and religious views‖ are not the only basis for marriage,
they are certainly a factor.
Before any man can be considered as a member of Civil Society, he must
be considered as a subject of the Governour of the Universe . . . Religion .
. . [is] the basis and Foundation of Government. James Madison, Chief
Architect of the Constitution, Fourth President of the United States)

What has actually happened in this case is evident to keen observers of
the decrees of the federal courts for many decades. The judge in this
case has not eliminated religion from his decision. Not at all. He has
done what the Court has been doing for at least half a century. He
simply struck down the Faith of our Fathers, i.e. the Holy Bible, and
substituted the Humanist religion, thereby striking another
sledgehammer blow to the foundation of our American way of life and our
Creator-endowed liberties.

A PRIVATE MORAL VIEW THAT SAME-SEX COUPLES ARE INFERIOR
TO OPPOSITE-SEX COUPLES IS NOT A PROPER BASIS FOR
LEGISLATION

What is left is evidence that Proposition 8 enacts a moral view that there
is something ―wrong‖ with same-sex couples. See FF 78-80.
So does your grandmother‘s Bible.

At this point several pages in the court record bashes the proponents‘
campaign to get voter approval of Proposition 8. It‘s as if the court is
aghast at the thought of a campaign to promote a candidate or issue in
an election, as if this is not the procedure in all elections, and as if the
homosexuals didn‘t launch their own campaign against Proposition 8.
CONCLUSION
Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men
and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows
Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California
Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-
sex couples. …the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.

Indeed, opposite-sex marriage is not superior to same-sex ―marriage.‖
Opposite-sex marriage is the one and only marriage. There is no other
kind of marriage with which to compare it. Considering the twisted logic
that so often rules in our federal courts, it apparently has become
necessary for the people themselves to ―enshrine‖ common-sense logic in
our Constitutions.

REMEDIES
The clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment without bond in favor of
plaintiffs and plaintiff-intervenors and against defendants and
defendant-intervenors pursuant to FRCP 58.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
VAUGHN R WALKER
United States District Chief Judge

Final Warning from the Supreme Court, itself, in a better day:
   It [the Constitution] must perish, if there be not that vital spirit in
   the people, which alone can nourish, sustain, and direct all its
   movements. It is in vain that statesmen shall form plans for
   government, in which the beauty and harmony of a republic shall
   be embodied in visible order, shall be built upon solid
   substructions, and adorned by every useful ornament, if the
   inhabitants suffer the silent power of time to dilapidate its walls, or
   crumble its massy supporters into dust; if the assaults from
   without are never resisted, and the rottenness and mining from
   within are never guarded against.
   Who can preserve the rights and liberties of the people, when they
   shall be abandoned by themselves? Who shall keep watch in the
   temple, when the watchmen sleep at their posts? Who shall call
   upon the people to redeem their possessions, and revive the
   republic, when their own hands have deliberately and corruptly
   surrendered them to the oppressor, and have built the prisons or
   dug the graves of their own friends?
   This dark picture, it is to be hoped, will never be applicable to the
   Republic of America. And yet it affords a warning, which, like all
   the lessons of past experience, we are not permitted to disregard.
   America, free, happy, and enlightened as she is, must rest the
   preservation of her rights and liberties upon the virtue,
  independence, justice, and sagacity of the people. If either fail, the
  republic is gone. Its shadow may remain with all the pomp, and
  circumstances, and trickery of government, but its vital powers will
  have departed.— Joseph Story, Justice of the U. S. Supreme Court, 1833

So, where are we today? Is our republic in reality already gone — with
only its shadow and all the pomp, circumstances, and trickery of
government remaining?


                 The Gay Agenda Marches On
             Unabashed, Undaunted, Unreasonable


2009 August 4, 2009, U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker overruled the
people of California, declaring their California Proposition 8
unconstitutional.

2010 July 9, 2010, Eleven months later, U. S. District Judge Joseph
Tauro in Massachusetts struck down Congress‘s federal Defense of
Marriage Act (DOMA)

Massachusetts Solicitor General Elena Kagan is suspected of deliberately
giving a weak case in defense of DOMA. One month later, August 7,
2010, Obama appoints Kagan to the U. S. Supreme Court.

Massachusetts - land of the Pilgrims, the Mayflower Compact, John and
Abigail Adams, Samuel Adams (―Father of the Revolution‖), John
Hancock, Paul Revere, Concord and Lexington…. ―How the mighty are
fallen.‖

Both judges Tauro and Walker used the worn out race card, opining that
limiting marriage to the union of one man and one woman is the
equivalent of racism. What on earth does race have to do with it? Only
legalistic twisted reasoning can arrive at such a conclusion.

Obviously the federal judges see themselves as superior to ―the laws of
nature and nature‘s God,‖ an overwhelming majority of the people of at
least 44 states, the overwhelming majority of the Congress of the United
States, the only elected representatives of We the People and the only
body Constitutionally empowered to enact laws. Incredible! Who do
these people think they are?

Meanwhile Jonathan Lopez was stopped and cursed in the middle of his
speech supportive of Proposition 8 by his professor who then threatened
to expel him from school. But this professor is only one of thousands of
tinhorn tyrants throughout the land inflicting our children with the
tyrannical edicts of federal judges.

Meanwhile in New Mexico, where same sex marriage is not legal, Elaine
and Jon Huguenin, owners of a photography business, refused to
photograph a same-sex ―commitment ceremony.‖ For this commitment
to their faith and good conscience, the New Mexico Human Rights
Commission charged them with ―sexual discrimination‖ and fined them
$ 7,000. The new definition of ―justice and liberty for all.‖ – If you can‘t
harass good folks with the race card, use the sexuality card.

                       Obama wades in (sort of)

Obama seems confused and confusing. He has stated that he is opposed
to same sex marriage. Yet he says that he understands that all who are
law abiding have equal rights. Now there‘s some fine political fence
straddling for you. Of course all have equal rights to marriage - one man
to one woman. There is no other ―marriage‖ for anyone.

February 24, 2011 Fort Worth Star Telegram: President Obama
announced that the U. S. Government will end its defense of Congress‘s
ban on gay marriage (DOMA), because he views the law as
unconstitutional.
Why Obama‘s rather sudden discovery? We find the answer in a five-
page letter from Eric Holder to John A. Boehner, Speaker of the U. S.
House of Representatives. But first, who is Eric Holder?
Following his graduation from Columbia University Law School in 1976,
Eric Holder clerked for the NAACP Legal Defense Fund for a short time.
From 1976 to 1998 he served in one office or another of the federal
government – the U. S. Justice Department, 1976 to 1988; D.C. Superior
Court Judge appointed by President Ronald Reagan 1988-1993; U. S.
Attorney for D. C. and deputy attorney general under President Bill
Clinton 1993 –1998. In 2007 he joined Obama‘s campaign team as
senior legal advisor. Nominated by Obama as U. S. Attorney General, he
was confirmed by the Democrat controlled U. S. Senate by a vote of 75-
21 in February 2009. Thus Eric Holder became one of the ―Czars‖ of the
Obama administration.
Holder‘s track record as assistant attorney general and U. S. Attorney
General includes:
    - dropping charges against Black Panthers who threatened and
      harassed voters and a reporter in Philadelphia during the 2008
      presidential election;
    - focusing on ―protecting traditional minorities along with Muslim-
      and Arab-Americans, abortion doctors and lesbian, gay, bisexual
      and trans gendered individuals;‖
    - support of federal hate crime laws;
    - commuting prison terms for Puerto Rican terrorists;
    - recommendation for trial of 911 Islamic terrorists in U. S. criminal
      court rather than military court;
    - refusal to connect Fort Hood massacre with radical Islam;
    - opposition to Arizona law to enforce federal immigration rules,
      threatening to sue state officials;
    - refusal to defend Congress‘s Defense of Marriage Act.

Some excerpts from Holder‘s letter to Boehner:

―After careful consideration, including review of a recommendation from
me, the President of the United States has made a determination that
…the Defense of Marriage Act…violates the equal protection component
of the Fifth Amendment.‖ Then follows three pages of smooth legalese
blather.
―…the President has instructed Executive agencies to continue to comply
with Section 3 of DOMA, consistent with the Executive‘s obligation to
take care that the laws be faithfully executed, unless and until Congress
repeals Section 3 or the judicial branch renders a definitive verdict
against the law‘s constitutionality. This course of action respects the
actions of the prior Congress that enacted DOMA, and it recognizes the
judiciary as the final arbiters of the constitutional claims raised.‖

Warning. You seem . . . to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters
of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine, indeed, and
one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Thomas
Jefferson. (“Author of the Declaration of Independence,” Third President of
the United States)

This ―dangerous doctrine‖ has now been slovenly accepted by the
Presidents, by the Congress, by our legal system and, worst of all, by We
the People of these once free United States.

This makes the Judiciary dept. paramount in fact to the Legislature,
which was never intended, and can never be proper. James Madison
(“Chief Architect of the Constitution,” Fourth President of the United
States)

―…pursuant to the President‘s instructions, and upon further notification
to Congress, I will instruct Department attorneys to advise courts in
other pending DOMA litigation of the President's and my conclusions
…that Section 3 is unconstitutional … and that the Department will
cease defense of Section 3.
                                       Eric H. Holder, Jr.
                                       Attorney General

So upon Holder‘s recommendation, President Obama announced that the
U. S. Government will end its defense of Congress‘s ban on gay marriage,
because he now views the law as unconstitutional.

The President has a right and a duty to refuse to defend or enforce a law
that he believes is unconstitutional. On the other hand, in so doing he is
refusing a duty imposed on him by the Constitution ―to take care that
the laws be faithfully executed,‖ and Congress is obligated to repeal the
law in question or to conduct a trial for impeachment of the President.
However, the present Congress of the United States appears to have
neither the guts not the character to impeach either a President or a
federal judge.

Jefferson‘s foresight is quite amazing. From the beginning he saw the
flaw in the Constitution that provided for life tenure for Supreme Court
judges. Impeachment was such a difficult proceeding that judges had
little reason to fear the ―scarecrow.‖ The people obviously need a better
way to deal with judicial tyrants than the impeachment ―scarecrow‖-
perhaps term limits or periodic review with dismissal or re-appointment
for federal judges.

             The Gay Agenda and the Democrat Party

March 18, 2011 – Margaret Hartman News Item: Congressional
Democrats Fight To Repeal Defense Of Marriage Act
… on Wednesday, House and Senate Democrats introduced their
versions of the Respect for Marriage Act. In the Senate, the bill was
introduced by Senators Patrick Leahy, Dianne Feinstein, and Kirsten
Gillibrand, with about 20 cosponsors. The House repeal effort is led by
Representatives Jerry Nadler and John Conyers, along with the four
openly gay members of Congress, Representatives Tammy Baldwin,
David Cicilline, Barney Frank, and Jared Polis, and 100 cosponsors,
according to The Wall Street Journal.

Repealing DOMA will still be difficult, even with President Obama's
support. As Speaker of the House John Boehner promised, House
leadership is preparing to defend the law in court. The Advocate reports
that Senator Chris Coons acknowledged getting the bills passed will be a
challenge: Hopefully the Tea Party arrived in Washington in the nick of
time to prevent this Democrat catastrophe.
―This is not the first time that a repeal of DOMA has been introduced,‖
Coons said. "But I hope that it will be the last. … The American people
have had enough of government-sanctioned discrimination…‖
Oh, have they now?? Who in the world do these people represent? Are
they stone deaf and blind? The American people, and therefore the
government, have spoken in overwhelming majorities in 44 states and in
an overwhelming majority of Congress. No, these Democrats are not
blind. They are misguided politicians who think they can play God for
the American people, or with eyes wide open, they are deliberately
pushing the Humanist agenda – the ―Evaluation, Transformation,
Control, and Direction‖ of our institutions.
.

The Democratic advocacy group Third Way has been circulating a memo
to supporters of the DOMA repeal that suggests they frame the issue
around family values (taking back the term Republicans hijacked long
ago). Family values? You have got to be kidding.

In statements, including Senator Feinstein's speech in the clip above,
Democrats used language that emphasized qualities of gay marriage that
go beyond sexual orientation. Like what? They may not be able to push
the bill through the Republican-controlled House, but at least instead of
dodging the issue, Democrats are finally taking meaningful steps toward
achieving marriage equality.
Try to visualize a traditional family with a mother and a father at the
head, and then visualize homosexual cohabitants with either two men or
two women at the head. If you cannot see that these two scenarios can
never be equal, this conversation is over.

                  New York Joins the Gay Parade


June 26, 2011 Fort Worth Star Telegram: N.Y lawmakers vote to legalize
gay marriage.

ALBANY, N.Y. – ―New York lawmakers narrowly voted to legalize same-
sex marriage Friday, handing activists a breakthrough victory in the
state where the gay-rights movement was born…The New York bill
cleared the Republican-controlled state Senate by a 33-29 vote, thanks
to crucial support from four GOP senators who joined all but one
Democrat in voting yes.‖ Please note that if four Republicans had not
merely ―talked the talk‖ but ―walked the walk‖ the numbers would have
been exactly the same, only the bill would have failed.
 ―Backroom deals in Albany are not an indication of what people in this
country think about marriage.‖ said Brian Brown, president of National
Organization for Marriage. Amen.

                   The Gay Agenda Goes Global
                   Thanks to the United States

June 18, 2011 Fort Worth Star Telegram – U. N. approves its first gay-
rights resolution.
GENEVA – The United Nations endorsed the rights of gay, lesbian and
transgender people for the first time Friday, passing a resolution hailed
as historic by the U. S. and other backers and decried by some African
and Muslim countries…activists credited the Obama administration‘s
push for gay rights at home and abroad…‖This represents a historic
moment to highlight the human rights abuses and violations that
lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people face around the world
based solely on who they are and whom they love,‖ Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton said in a statement…Backers included the U. S., the
European Union, Brazil, and other Latin American countries. Those
against included Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Pakistan and
other Muslim nations.

How about that! Russia, China, and Islam, no friends of America, yet
showing more common sense in these matters than the present rulers of
the United States.

July 3, 2011 Fort Worth Star Telegram: In a strongly worded legal brief,
the Obama administration said the federal act that defines marriage as
being between a man and a woman was motivated by hostility toward
gays and lesbians and is unconstitutional. The brief was filed Friday in
federal court in San Francisco in support of a lesbian federal employee‘s
lawsuit claiming that the government wrongly denied health coverage to
her same-sex spouse.

Obama now ratchets up pressure against Congress‘s Defense of Marriage
Act, changing from passive refusal to defend the act to actively opposing
it in court. This action goes beyond Obama‘s Constitutional duty. His
action is probably unconstitutional and subject to impeachment. It is
another step in Obama‘s campaign promise to ―fundamentally transform
the United States of America.‖

So, let‘s talk about motivation. Which of Obama‘s worldviews motivates
him to take such legal action against the Congress of the United States?
Not Christian – he totally opposes Christ‘s definition of marriage. Not
Muslim – that religion does not approve homosexuality. Not Black
Liberation Theology – that religion has no such doctrine. That leaves
only his Humanist worldview which he derived from his mother – the
―Evaluation, Transformation, Control, and Direction‖ of the United States
of America.

July 6, 2011 Fort Worth Star Telegram: Landmark gay history bill passed
by lawmakers.
California lawmakers on Tuesday sent Gov. Jerry Brown a bill that would
make the state the first requiring public schools to include the
contributions of gays and lesbians in social studies curriculum. The bill
adds lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people as well as people
with disabilities to the list of groups that schools must include in the
lessons. It also would prohibit material that reflects adversely on gays.

This is precisely what proponents of California Proposition 8 said would
happen if federal judge Vaughn Walker overruled the people of California.
Opponents said not so. Judge Walker did strike down Proposition 8, and
here you have it.

Is it not amazing that tag-along lawmakers and administrative tyrants
hop to it whenever a federal judge speaks, as if God Almighty himself had
spoken? No matter that over five million California parents, the majority
of California voters, had spoken otherwise.

Do lawmakers ever stop to think of the implications of the ridiculous
laws they enact? It doesn‘t seem so. First of all, school children will
have to be taught all the forms of sexual deviation before they will have a
clue what the teacher is talking about. (Now there‘s a vital subject for
our children to learn in school). Then researchers - with federal grants no
doubt - will have to investigate the homosexual adventures of prominent
persons of the past who have contributed something worthwhile. Will
teachers also be required to point out that so and so was not
homosexual? (How about all this for must-know history?)

Present day homosexual contributors could include federal judge Vaughn
R. Walker who disenfranchised California voters regarding Proposition 8.
(There‘s a valuable contribution to society).    Comedienne (?) Ellen
Degeneres could be honored.

It (the law) also would prohibit material that reflects adversely on gays.

But, for Heaven‘s sake, don‘t allow a negative word against
homosexuality. California lawmakers must protect that state‘s main
industry – Hollywood. Dare not mention the fact that gay actor Rock
Hudson died of AIDS, nor that it was gay men who gave AIDS to the
world.
This law in its entirety is disgusting and offensive to the thinking people
of America. But this last provision also violates our Constitutional right
to freedom of speech. Perhaps our Supreme Court has so perverted the
plain-English, common sense meaning of our Constitution that
lawmakers don‘t know (or don‘t care) when they violate it.

And why on earth throw disabled persons in with the homosexual lot?
Should researchers pry into the sexuality of President Franklin D.
Roosevelt, for instance, who was disabled wih polio? And tell our school
children whether or not he was gay? (Surely they are entitled to know
such vital statistics).

Will the fools that rule never tire of enacting new and ridiculous ―civil
rights‖ laws to weary the life and minds of good folks?

Actually the lawmakers motivation was most likely this: The present
generation does not have a majority of people ready and willing to
normalize and publicize homosexual behavior, especially same-sex
―marriage.‖ So let‘s use the peoples‘ education money to indoctrinate a
new generation who will embrace the gay agenda - even the total
Humanist agenda for America.

If this asinine act of the California legislature should go nationwide, look
for America‘s academic achievement level to drop still lower as compared
to other developed nations, who don‘t waste their people‘s time and
money on academic nonsense.

July 9, 2011 Fort Worth Star Telegram: Gay marriages on bases are
rejected.
Intent on delaying a new policy allowing gays to serve openly in the
armed forces, the House voted Friday to prohibit military chaplains from
performing same-sex marriages on the nation‘s bases regardless of state
law. On a 236-184 vote, the House attached the measure to the defense
spending bill, one of several steps the Republican-controlled chamber
has taken this year to delay President Barrack Obama‘s new policy.

…Defense Secretary Leon Panetta is likely to certify the change for
midsummer after military training ends.

The Commander-in-Chief is now leading the Humanist brigade in its
assault on our military, before the good people can assemble an
opposition force big enough to stop his advance. This is the same
feverish tactic he used to ram through Obamacare, against the expressed
will of the people, while Democrat Nancy Pelosi was still Speaker of the
House and Democrats held the majority in both houses of Congress.
July 13, 2011 Fort Worth Star Telegram: Romney rejects Iowa group‘s
pledge. Former Massachusetts (a same-sex marriage state) Governor
Mitt Romney‘s campaign said Tuesday that he will not sign a
conservative Iowa Christian group‘s far-reaching pledge opposing gay
marriage. He is the first Republican candidate to reject it….Minnesota
Representative Michelle Bachmann and former Pennsylvania Senator
Rick Santorum have signed The Family Leader‘s 14-point pledge, which
calls on candidates to denounce same-sex marriage, pornography, same-
sex military accommodations, and forms of Islamic law.
As far as this writer is concerned, Romney has just dropped out of the
primary race.

CONCLUSION

Most certainly, people of good will cannot condone mistreatment of
anyone. Existing laws are in place to prevent criminal acts against our
person or property, whoever may commit the crime, whoever may be the
victim, or whatever may be the motive. (―hate crime‖ laws simply not
required).

But the issue before our federal courts is not about people showing their
distaste for the gay and lesbian lifestyle. It is about making the
Humanist agenda the law of the land - the ―Evaluation, Transformation,
Control, and Direction‖ of our institutions – in this case, the institution
of marriage. The gay agenda is the vehicle by which this transformation
is being pursued.

By the end of the twentieth century, aided and abetted by the U. S.
Supreme Court, Humanism had gained virtual control of most of our
institutions. We shall soon see whether the Court will allow that evil
religion to Transform, Control, and Direct the institution of marriage.
The whole concept of same-sex marriage is asinine. It can never happen
in reality, but to make it the pretentious law of the land will destroy
Western Civilization‘s two-thousand-year old concept of conjugal love,
marriage, and family and substitute a perverted concept of morality, love,
marriage, and family. It will shipwreck all laws and customs associated
with the issue, create confusion, and even more animosity and hatred
than at present. It will create a mass of court cases (to the delight of
lawyers and judges). It will fly in the face of the American people, who
have clearly expressed the will of the overwhelming majority at the ballot
box.
Even considering the U. S. Supreme Court‘s decades-long war on
Christianity, surely there remains enough common sense in that body to
prevent this social and political disaster. Time will tell. We shall soon
see.
What shall we do then? Shall we organize ourselves into a non-partisan
We-the-People movement; rise up and take back our Constitution from
the unworthy hands to which we had entrusted it; amend it so as to weld
it to our Declaration of Independence; or shall we allow black-robed
untouchables to tear down every stone from the foundation of our
American way of life and our Creator-endowed liberties?
And now in conclusion, since I have written a gloves-off broadside
against my countrymen in authority, in my final appeal I yield my pen to
a word of wisdom greater than mine:
    I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers,
    intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; for kings,
    and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and
    peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. For it is good and
    acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; who will have all men to
    be saved and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
                                              The Bible, I Timothy 2:1-4
Acknowledgement: Eric Holder‘s profile comes from Robert Knight‘s book,
Radical Rulers, available from Coral Ridge Ministries. Quotes of America‘s
Founding Fathers are taken from William, J. Federer‘s book, America’s
God and Country, Fame Publishing, Inc., Coppell, Texas.             Every
household should have this book.
These organizations are worthy of our support:
Allied Defense Fund, 15100 N. 90th Street, Scottsdale, AZ 85260
1-800-Tell-ADF    info@TruthandTrimph.org
Coral Ridge Ministries www.coralridge.org
American Center for Law and Justice, P.O. Box 90555, Washington, D.C.
20090-0555                www.ACLJ.org

								
To top