ooohhhhh!! Naked fear-mongering at its best...I love it!

Good info. Craig. You are right! we need to be more pro-active.

Thanks and God Bless

(1) It's "wring our hands."

(2) This entire post is a call to action based on an imaginary threat -- the idea that one's local parish is going to be forced to marry a couple against its will. There have been no serious suggestions of doing this, which sound undoubtedly would run afoul of the Separation Clause of the First Amendment.

This decision was based on an interpretation of the state's constitution. You may find the decision not to your liking, but it was in the legitimate power of the court recognize same-sex marriage.

In about 90 days, the first same-sex marriages will take place. It is my hope that state Republicans find something more constructive to do in the next few months than try to destroy these marriages in the name of "saving" the "institution."

DU

DU

Imaginary threat? and Art Pedroza, aka Cabana Republicana is dancing on the street celebrating his late cinco de mayo!

We need to stay alert, be informed and ACT!........against demolition attempt against our fundamental family structure!

Watch "The Truth Project" from the Focus on the Family organization

Mechanical Eye

First thanks for your correction that its wring not ring.

"This entire post is a call to action based on an imaginary threat..." O really? Well let us look at recent legislative history:

AB 537 (signed into law 2000) - Mandatory tolerance of homosexuality in public schools: No religious or rights of conscience exemptions or parental opt outs.

AB 866 (vetoed 2005) Amendment to the Code of Fair Political Practices Act - provides that a candidate that accepts the voluntary code cannot comment on his/her opponent's sexual orientation: No religious or rights of conscience exemptions.

AB723 (vetoed 2005) Mandatory tolerance training of public school employees: No religious or rights of conscience exemptions.

AB 606 (vetoed 2006) Mandatory curriculum on tolerance training: No religious or rights of conscience exemptions or parental opt outs.

AB 1207 (signed into law 2006) Code of Fair Political Practices Act - basically the same as AB 866 in 2005: No religious or rights of conscience exemptions.

SB 1441 (signed into law 2006) No "discrimination" against homosexuals for any organizations that receive state funding: No religious or rights of conscience exemptions. Note: the Catholic Church was forced to change its policies in order to continue to run adoption agency services due to this law.

SB 1437 (vetoed 2006) Textbooks in public schools can not teach anything that is "discriminatory" to, or is negative towards, the homosexual lifestyle: No religious or rights of conscience exemptions or parental opt outs

SB 777 (signed into law 2007) No "discrimination" against, among others, homosexuals, bisexuals and transgender people, including anything is the curriculum, of public and some private schools: No religious or rights of conscience exemptions in public schools and limited exemptions for private schools and no parental opt outs

SB 1729 (pending in the Senate) Mandatory sensitivity training for health care professionals who care for gay seniors: No religious or rights of conscience exemptions.

Hum...I see a pattern and practice in what is being presented and sometimes passed into law by the legislature. And this is not an exhaustive list. This pattern and practice is to silence those who disagree with the granting of special rights to homosexuals.

As for the decision itself - apparently you advocate that if the court has made its decision then we must all just suck it up, shut up and forget about our objections. Aside from the fact that my disagreements are not just on the outcome of the court's decision (I also think its a poorly reasoned decision), since the people will have a chance to vote on this in the fall, and since I still believe in the democratic system (and not that we have transferred our democracy to the majority of any court), I choose to advance what I believe to be good public policy. A public policy to uphold marriage as between a man and a woman only that has been the public policy of Western civilization long before our country was founded.

So pardon me if I do not just sit around a ring - O I mean wring - my hands in despair. Rather I will exercise my freedom of speech rights to advocate that the people overturn this poster child of legislating from the bench on November 4th!

Can same-sex couples marry in California?

Yes. On May 15, 2008, the California Supreme Court ruled that barring same-sex couples from marriage is unconstitutional. Beginning as soon as June 16, same-sex couples will be able to marry in California.

Can the court’s decision be appealed?

No. The California Supreme Court has the final say in cases brought under the California Constitution, like this case, and there can be no more appeals.

Does the court’s decision affect the rights of heterosexual couples?

No. The rights of heterosexual couples to marry and the rights and responsibilities of those who are married remain exactly the same. The decision simply ensures equality and fairness for same-sex couples.

Does this ruling require religious groups or clergy members to marry same-sex couples?

No. The court’s decision said the government may not discriminate against same-sex couples by barring them from civil marriage – a legal institution established and regulated by the government. Religious groups and clergy members remain free to recognize or refuse to recognize marriages within their religion as each sees fit. While some faiths do not permit same-sex couples to marry within that faith, a growing number do. As a result of the court’s decisions, same-sex couples may choose to be married by a clergy person in a welcoming community of faith or by a civil servant such as a judge or authorized deputy.

Should we get married now?

Marriage is a serious legal and personal commitment that should not be entered into lightly. Before getting married, couples should educate themselves about the legal consequences of marriage, in addition to other considerations.
Same-sex couples also face some additional considerations that heterosexual couples do not face, due to discrimination by the federal government as well as by a number of states. Deciding whether to marry is an important decision for everyone, gay or straight, but lesbian and gay couples have to be prepared for and be willing to take on those additional challenges.

A period of legal uncertainty is likely. For example, if you marry in California, you cannot be certain whether your marriage will be respected if you live in, travel to, or move to a state that has laws or constitutional amendments limiting marriage to heterosexual couples.

In addition, current federal law prohibits the federal government from recognizing marriages of same-sex couples for purposes of the many federal rights and benefits given to married heterosexual couples, such as the right to file joint federal income taxes and the right to social security benefits as a surviving spouse. Being excluded from these federal protections, and often state protections as well, is a serious hardship and can cause significant legal problems.

Important Note: Binational couples in which one member does not have permanent legal resident status in this country and anyone serving in the U.S. military should consult with an attorney with expertise in these areas of law before getting married.

If we’re already in a registered domestic partnership in California, do we have to dissolve our domestic partnership before we can marry?

No. The California domestic partnership statutes permit an individual to be both married and in a registered domestic partnership, so long as it is to the same person. In addition, there may be legal protections that are available through domestic partnership but not through marriage. For example, some states that will not honor marriages of same-sex couples may honor domestic partnerships.

Do you have to be a California resident to marry in California?

No. There is no residency requirement to marry in California.

If my partner and I are from another state and marry in California, will our marriage be valid in our home state?

If you live in another state and get married in California, you will be legally married. However, depending on where you live, your home state may not respect your marriage. Many states have passed discriminatory marriage laws, and in those states, state and local governments likely will not respect your California marriage. But even in those states, it is highly likely that at least some private businesses and other private third parties will respect your marriage – particularly those that already recognize same-sex couples through domestic partnership or a similar system.

Marriage is a serious legal decision, and same-sex couples face additional challenges and questions because of continuing discrimination against married same-sex couples by the federal government and many states. We urge couples who are considering getting married in California to proceed with caution. Before getting married in California, you should educate yourselves about the law in your state and, if possible, consult an attorney about the best way to protect your relationship based on your circumstances.

Can we file lawsuits if our marriages are not respected in other states or by the federal government?

If you feel you have been discriminated against, please contact one of the LGBT legal organizations listed on this document. We can help you figure out what options you have to protect your rights. Some types of unfair treatment can be the basis of a lawsuit, and other times the unfairness may not be suitable for a court to address. Even when litigation is an option, it is not the only option. It is always necessary to weigh the chances of success or failure because bad results in lawsuits can cause set backs and hurt our entire community. We want to increase the chances of winning overall, so it is critical that we work together to have a carefully planned strategy. Together, we can win!

What do we have to do to marry in California?

First you need to get a marriage license from the office of the Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk of any California county. You can get a license application from most counties’ websites and complete it in advance, or complete it in the county clerk’s office. Both of you must go together to the county office and present a government-issued picture ID and proof that you are over 18 years old. (If either or both is younger than 18, different procedures apply.) You’ll need to pay the license fee, which varies by county but generally is less than $100. The license will be valid for 90 days and your marriage can be performed anywhere in California. Neither a blood test nor a health certificate is required. Call ahead or visit the county’s website to learn the hours and locations of the county offices that issue licenses.

Who can marry us?

In California, clergy members, active and retired judges and court commissioners, and the Commissioner and Deputy Commissioners of Civil Marriages are authorized to perform legal marriages. The Commissioner and Deputy Commissioners of Civil Marriages perform marriage ceremonies by appointment at designated county offices. There is a fee, which generally is less than $50. Call ahead or visit the county website for more information.
Any couple wishing to marry can also have a friend deputized to perform their marriage ceremony through a county “Deputy Commissioner for a Day” program. If you choose this option, you will need at least two months advance notice and the person to be deputized to perform your ceremony will have to pay a fee and visit the county office in person to be sworn in. Visit the county website to see if your county has this program. If it does not, check whether a nearby county will deputize an out-of-county resident.
The person who performs your ceremony must complete and sign your marriage license after the ceremony. In addition, at least one witness 18 years old or older must sign the marriage license.

The license then becomes your marriage certificate, which has to be returned promptly to the county for filing.

What happens if we marry in California and then wish to divorce?

The only legal way to end a marriage is to get a divorce. If you marry in California and live in California, you can divorce by filing a petition with a California court. However, if you move to another state, or if you already live in another state, getting a divorce could be difficult. Currently, the only state other than California in which same-sex married couples have an established right to divorce is Massachusetts; however, Massachusetts has a one-year residency requirement before a person can petition a Massachusetts court for a divorce. States with civil unions or comprehensive domestic partnerships, like Connecticut, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Oregon, and Vermont, may also allow married same-sex couples to divorce, but those states also have one-year residency requirements. That means that at least one spouse must be a resident of the state for a year prior to the divorce.

Couples who are unable to obtain a divorce remain legally married. Therefore, being unable to divorce may cause serious legal problems and complications for same-sex couples who find themselves in this situation.

Could right-wing forces take away the freedom to marry at the ballot box in California?

Yes. Because the court based its decision on rights guaranteed by the California Constitution, right-wing groups are trying to amend our state Constitution to eliminate these fundamental constitutional protections and take away the basis for the decision.
These groups, which have received significant funding from out-of-state right-wing organizations, are placing an initiative on the November 2008 ballot that will ask voters to amend the California constitution to reverse the court’s decision and deny gay and lesbian couples the freedom to marry.

Already, many state leaders are expressing their opposition to this proposed constitutional amendment. For example, in a public statement on April 11, 2008, Governor Schwarzenegger stated that an initiative to amend the California Constitution to ban gay and lesbian couples from marriage was “a waste of time,” adding “I will always be there to fight against that. It will never happen.”

We agree with Governor Schwarzenegger that these outsiders are wasting their time and money trying to turn California into a state that would use its Constitution to take away civil rights and hurt families.

The Mechanical Eye states this is an imaginery threat:
That is what the gay movement would like all Californians to believe right now.
Well, I have absolute evidence that a number of homosexual entities are already planning to sue pastors who refuse to perform same-sex weddings. The ACLU is biting at the bit, as they have done for the past four decades, to sue anyone who refuses to perform the same marriages that are provided to heterosexual couples. We already have seen lawsuits filed against pro-life pharmacists who refuse to prescribe RU-486 abortion pills. We already have lawsuits filed against the city to force the Boy Scouts to accept homosexuality in its ranks. We already have lawsuits filed against doctors who will not artificially inseminate lesbians like they do for their heterosexual married female patients. The ACLU received $900,000 recently on the Boy Scouts lawsuit. James McElroy received approximately $700,000 from the city even though he lost the case where he was seeking to tear down the Mt. Soledad Cross.
You see, this whole thing is not even about homosexuality. What this is about, is the covert, anti-christian movement in America that despises anything to do with Christianity and will do anything and everything that the law provides to shut down the churches. They use the gay movement issue as a front for accomplishing their goal, which is to create a secular society where Christianity is pushed to a dusty bookshelf somewhere out of site and out of mind in America.
Oh, yes.. Yes, indeed. The lawsuits have been ready for years. They have been laying the ground work, incrementally and covertly for the past 30 years. First there was the 1978 gay rights ruling under Governor Jerry Brown. Then the yearly gay right legislation. Then the domestic partnership law. Than the gay, civil unions conceptual laws. Then, last years, the final piece of the puzzle was put into place. Sexual orientation was added to the Unruh Law, with NO religious exceptions. That means, churches must hire homosexuals as pastors, teachers, Sunday School babysitters, etc. And if the church refuses to hire them because it violates their religious beliefs, they can be sued under the Unruh Act. With the legalization of same-sex marriages in California, the final brick is laid in the anti-christian, gay agenda plan.
Oh, yes...Yes, indeed. The millions of dollars to fund gay centers, buy the violating church properties, fund gay candidate campaigns, make more rainbow flags, etc. etc. etc. will now be readily available thanks to the lawsuits that will be won against pastors and their churches who refuse to perform gay weddings. There will be no exceptions. It will be the law and that is what will be argued in courtroom after courtroom after courtroom. That has been the plan all along by the same kinds of attorneys who work for the ACLU to bancrupt churches as the pastors will have to spend all of their money and resources to defend against these lawsuits.
You will see hundreds of anti-christian, anti-bible homosexual activists who will go to church offices and demand the pastors to perform their "wedding" vows. Once they refuse, the courtrooms will be full of slick, liberal, ACLU atorneys demanding compensation for the horrible pain and suffering inflicted upon their clients as they were so horribly discriminated against under the new California law.

Ray Haynes states that Gay Marriage is all Mike Schroeder's fault:

I Hate to Say It
by Ray Haynes - State Capitol (bio) (email)(print) 5-15-2008 5:21 pm

...but I told you so.

In 1998, I was appointed Chair of the Republican Party's Judicial Evaluation Committee. Specifically, the committe was asked to evaluate the Justices and Judges up for election in 1998. The most public individual up for election that year was Chief Justice Ron George, who, through a set of very ugly legal maneuverings, was able to reverse the decision of the California Supreme Court prohibiting abortions for minors without parental consent. George was not content to allow the decision of the then Lucas Court affirming the law requiring parental consent to stand. In his first act as the Chief Justice, right after the retirement of Chief Justice Lucas, George, abusing his power as the new Chief Justice, went about acting to reverse the decision. He had no scruples about ignoring the tradition of the court, stare decisis, or judicial restraint to promote his own version of how society should be organized.

Then Republican Party Chair Mike Schroeder stacked committee to support Chief Justice George (after he appointed me chair), but I made my case to the committee. I argued that a Justice who would ignore the tradition of the court (Justice George used his power as Chief Justice to reverse the Lucas decision simply because the personnel on the court had changed, which had never been done in California before that time), or stare decisis or principles of judicial restraint (the dissenting opinions of Justices Baxter and Rogers Brown demonstate how tortured the majority decision had to be to reverse the Lucas decision) could not be trusted to be a justice that would exercise judicial restraint in the future. I was overruled by the majority of the committee, who felt it was more important to have a justice that was tough on crime, rather than one who knew and respected the role of judges in a constitutional republic.

They were wrong, and Chief Justice George's decision on Proposition 22 is the culmination of his judicial activism. Chief Justice George was then, and is now, a judicial activist, and the fact that he was appointed by Republican Governors doesn't change that fact. It merely points out how foolish some Republican Governors can be. The overriding consideration for judicial appointments (or our support of a judicial candidate) cannot be their support of one or more parts of the Republican agenda, it has to be their view of the role of a judge in our constitutional republic. Judges are not legislators. They don't get to write law. They don't get to use the Constitution as an excuse to substitute their idea of a good law for the law enacted by the Legislature or the people through initiative.

Yet that is exactly what Ron George did in the Prop. 22 case. There is no law anywhere allowing the marriage of homosexuals, yet, not only did the court declare that Prop. 22 violated the State's Constitution, they declare a positive right for homosexuals to marry. That is judicial activism at its worst. This decision is not historical because of its declaration of rights for homosexuals, it is historical because it is the nadir of judicial restraint in California. The Legislature might as well go home, and let the Supreme Court do the Legislature's job. According to Ron George, the Supreme Court is obviously better at that job.

We should have kicked him out in 1998. He deserved it then. We'll have another chance in 2010 (if he doesn't quit before then). Maybe this time, the Republican Party will do the right thing, and oppose this guy, no matter who appointed him.

Hartline is right: The Gays have taken over the California Gay Old Party. Mike Schroeder was a sleeper mole.

Is Cabana boy actually implying that the California Republican Party supports the gay agenda and that its leaders are quiet supporters of that cause?

I only know what James Hartline tells us.

Then I'd recommend checking your sources - James Hartline's scandalous past does not qualify him to make judgments about other people - especially where the issue of homosexuality is concerned.

Wears why after Labor Day, does he?

Has been know to show his ankles and a bit of calf in mixec company?

The scamp.

should have been "white" rather than why. Darn 3 martini lunches

Basing judgments about committed Republican leaders on the basis of one man’s comments, regardless if he shows his ankles (or otherwise) in mixed company, is inappropriate and shortsighted. I’d be happy to examine any real evidence put forward by Mr. Hartline, if indeed such evidence exists, that there is a massive conspiracy happening in the Republican Party to support the gay agenda. It is my belief that there is no such plot.

"AB 866 (vetoed 2005) Amendment to the Code of Fair Political Practices Act - provides that a candidate that accepts the voluntary code cannot comment on his/her opponent's sexual orientation: No religious or rights of conscience exemptions."

Craig,

FYI

Despite a veto, the language of this bill was gut and amended into another Yee bill (AB 1207) and signed by the governor one year later.

"CRAIG DELUZ"

Thank you for your information about AB 866 and AB 1207. If you take another look at my earlier post you'll see AB 1207 mentioned below AB 866.

But your correct about the later passage into law of the substance of AB 866.