The following release was issued by our good friend Randy Thomasson of SaveCalifornia.com:
SaveCalifornia.com News Release
December 7, 2012 — For Immediate Release
U.S. Supreme Court Taking Prop. 8 Is About Our Republic
Thomasson: “This battle is not just about marriage, but about whether we still have a republic.”
Sacramento, California — A leading man-woman marriage organization in California is very happy that the United States Supreme Court has announced it will review Proposition 8, and is urging the nation’s high court to overturn the unconstitutional, biased opinions of California judicial activists Stephen Reinhardt and Vaughn Walker.
“The announcement from the Supreme Court is good news for everyone who knows, deep in their hearts, that children do best with a married father and mother under the same roof,” said Randy Thomasson, a longtime advocate of natural marriage and president of SaveCalifornia.com, which promotes moral virtues for the common good. “For the stability and health of our society, children need to see real marriages as their role model, not counterfeit ‘marriages,’ but true marriages between a man and a woman.”
“This battle is not just about marriage, but about whether we still have a republic,” Thomasson said. “We’re relying on the Supreme Court to uphold the plain reading of the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees each state ‘a republican form of government’ — a government under the written law, not government run by the unconstitutional prejudices of some judges. Without question, the Supreme Court should reserve marriage licenses exclusively for one man and one woman, not only for the sake of children and families, but for the sake of our republic.”
“The California Constitution reserving marriage licenses for a man and a woman, as God created it, does not contradict anything in the text or history of the U.S. Constitution,” Thomasson said. He offered four constitutional reasons why the Supreme Court should uphold Proposition 8, approved by California voters in 2008:
1. Marriage licenses are not in the United States Constitution, so this case never should have gotten into federal court in the first place.
2. Article IV, Section 4 guarantees to California and every other state “a republican form of government” — meaning 1) no monarchy and 2) no lawless mob rule, but a government of written laws representing the will of the people, who are sovereign. The California Constitution represents the people’s will on marriage and the United States Supreme Court should affirm that. (See footnote recording James Madison’s definition of republican government as “a republican constitution and its existing laws” )
Here is an appearance from last Summer of my friend Randy Thomasson of SaveCalifornia.com, on Sacramento’s Fox-40’s live morning show (July 18, 2011). Randy has become a fervent advocate of parents pulling their children out of the public schools, especially in the wake of passage a SB 48, a California bill that mandates the teaching of homosexual, bisexual and transgender historical figures (read: pro-“gay”-activist history) in K-12 schools. The law went into effect January 1, 2012. Note Randy’s allusion to the law’s prohibition on negative information about homosexuality, which refers to the portion of the law that amends the Cal. Education Code as follows:
51501. The state board and any governing board shall not adopt any textbooks or other instructional materials for use in the public schools that contain any matter reflecting adversely upon persons on the basis of race or ethnicity, gender, religion, disability, nationality, sexual orientation, or because of a characteristic listed in Section 220.
For more on the other “sexual indoctrination” bills pending in the California legislature, go HERE.
Folks, if you want to understand how ridiculous, extreme and evil the self-described “Queer” movement can be, take a look at this freakish cover of the “Official Program Guide” for the annual San Francisco “Folsom Street Fair,” held last Sunday. As if the leather-leash-biting guy on the tricycle isn’t bad enough, notice the older white fellow (the “Master”) with his younger, shackled African American (sexual) “Slave.” (So much for “liberation.”) We couldn’t attend this year’s Folsom event to report firsthand the full nudity and outrageous perversions that occur there [see these AFTAH reports from previous Folsoms: 2009; 2008; 2007; WARNING: they’re very offensive]. But cultural artifacts such as this attest to the Pandora’s Box that is the modern homosexualist (“gay”) movement. And this is just the beginning of what we will report to you on the über-depraved “San Francisco values” on display at the city’s just-concluded “Leather Week,” which culminates every year in the deviant-sex fair of Folsom: – Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org
Judge Vaughn Walker had “personal bias”; his “outrageous decision must be vacated”
Admitted homosexual Judge Vaughn Walker
By J. Matt Barber
Proposition 8 is an amendment to California’s State Constitution. It was passed by a comfortable margin via ballot initiative in 2008. Prop 8 maintained the age-old definition of marriage in the Golden State as requiring binary male-female compatibility. It remains tied-up in Federal Court today.
Back in February of 2010 it became rumored that retired Federal Judge Vaughn Walker – who presided over the case at the District level – was a practitioner of the homosexual lifestyle. It was further reported that he had a longtime male lover. Judge Walker refused to confirm or deny the rumors. At the time I was one of the few people to publicly call for his recusal. It’s inexplicable that attorneys defending Prop 8 didn’t make such a motion.
With Judge Walker’s recent admission that he does in fact practice homosexuality, the case for recusal has been proven. His ruling on the Prop 8 case should be immediately vacated as he possessed both an incontrovertible and disqualifying conflict of interest.
Even (homosexual) U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker noted the inadequate defense of Proposition 8, Liberty Counsel reported.
The following press release was sent out August 4, 2010, by Christian legal defense group Liberty Counsel:
California Judge Strikes Down Prop 8 Marriage Amendment
San Francisco, CA – Today U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker ruled in Perry v. Schwarzenegger that Proposition 8, defining marriage as the union of one woman and one man in the California Constitution, violates the U.S. Constitution. Every court until today has rejected the argument that there is a “right” to same-sex marriage under the U.S. Constitution. In November 2008, California voters amended their state constitution by passing Prop 8, and the California Supreme Court upheld the marriage amendment.
Although Liberty Counsel has defended the marriage laws in California since the battle began in 2004, the Alliance Defense Fund, representing the Prop 8 initiative, opposed Liberty Counsel’s attempt to intervene on behalf of Campaign for California Families. The California Attorney General did not oppose Liberty Counsel’s intervention, but ADF did. Liberty Counsel sought to provide additional defense to Prop 8 because of concern that the case was not being adequately defended. After ADF actively opposed Liberty Counsel, ADF presented only two witnesses at trial, following the 15 witnesses presented by those who challenged the amendment. Even Judge Walker commented that he was concerned by the lack of evidence presented by ADF on behalf of Prop 8. Liberty Counsel will file an amicus brief at the court of appeals in defense of Prop 8.
Here Comes the Harvey Milk Propaganda: will this children’s picture book lionizing assassinated San Francisco “gay”activist Harvey Milk make its way into grade schools across California now that the state is on record celebrating the pro-homosexuality crusader?
Folks, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and every Republican who covers up for Schwarzenegger’s liberal follies are helping to destroy the GOP’s “pro-family” brand. Corrupting children’s minds and souls through manipulative school exercises like “Harvey Milk Day” is anti-family and anti-child to the core. You simply cannot be pro-sexual sin and pro-family at the same time.
Thanks to California’s moral weakling of a governor, millions of schoolchildren will be subjected to propaganda extolling San Francisco homosexual crusader Milk — who, as my friend Randy Thomasson of SaveCalifornia.com rightly says — is hardly an appropriate role model for children. Kudos to Randy and other pro-family Californians for working so hard trying to stop this public policy madness. — Peter LaBarbera, Americans For Truth
TAKE ACTION: Contact Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele (email@example.com; 202-863-8700 or -8500) and also your local/state GOP representatives (in office and out) and tell them how offended you are at Republican California Gov. Schwarzenegger’s latest capitulations to the Homosexual Lobby. Tell Steele that moral issues are an important plank of the Republican Party and that “going gay” will sap the strength out of the conservative grassroots. If you are a Democrat, call or write Democratic National Committee Chairman Tim Kaine and urge the party to STOP pandering to homosexual activists and undermining traditional marriage. (Kaine is the current Governor of Virginia.)
Sacramento – SaveCalifornia.com, a leading West Coast pro-family, pro-child organization, is appalled that Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has signed SB 572, “Harvey Milk Day,” into law.
“Harvey Milk* was a sexual predator of teens, an advocate of polygamous relationships, a public liar, and is in no way a good role model for impressionable schoolchildren,” said Randy Thomasson, president of SaveCalifornia.com. “Sadly, children in public schools will now have even more in-your-face, homosexual-bisexual-transsexual indoctrination. This provides the strongest impetus yet for loving parents to remove their children from anti-family public schools.”
“’Harvey Milk Day’ teaches children as young as five years old to admire the life and values of the notorious homosexual activist Harvey Milk” said Thomasson. “The ‘suitable commemorative exercises’ that are part of ‘Harvey Milk Day’ can easily result in cross-dressing exercises, ‘LGBT pride’ parades and mock gay weddings on school campuses — everything Harvey Milk supported.”
Milk-ing the Schools to Indoctrinate Kids: Almost by definition, students celebrating Harvey Milk Day in California will get the politically correct, Hollywood version of his life — e.g., that he was assassinated by a “murderous homophobe” (not true: Ray Sloan — the campaign manager and confidant of Milk’s killer, Dan White — was openly homosexual, and testified that White “supported nearly all of Milk’s gay-friendly resolutions,” according to a liberal San Francisco paper). Milk — who supported cult mass-murderer Jim Jones — is hardly an appropriate role model for children (see Dan Flynn’s City Journal article, “Drinking Harvey Milk’s Kool-Aid”). The Democrat-led push for a day honoring this homosexual activist of dubious character is only the most audacious example of pro-homosexuality liberals using the schools to indoctrination children.
Folks, we have been slow to comment on all the Harvey Milk hype in our liberal-dominated popular culture — hype that is driving this push for an outrageous California bill that would effectively force students to celebrate a man famous for … being the first “out and proud” practitioner of homosexuality to win public office. (Oh boy: another marker for America’s Moral Meltdown.) The more one reads about Milk (see Dan Flynn’s excellent City Journal piece HERE) and the real story about his murder at the hands of Dan White (see caption above), the more preposterous becomes the idea of heralding him as a “civil rights” martyr.
My friend Randy Thomasson of SaveCalifornia.com put out the following release after the half-victory (or half-loss) of the Prop 8 decision. — Peter LaBarbera
‘An Arm and a Leg Cut off Marriage’: Thomasson
California Supreme Court upholds only half of Prop. 8
Sacramento, California — Today’s ruling by the California Supreme Court that some 18,000 homosexual “marriages” are valid, despite the vote of the people to prohibit such legal recognition, has frustrated and disappointed pro-family citizens who voted for true protection of marriage licenses for a man and a woman.
“While it was good that the majority of the justices ruled only man-woman marriages could be performed after Prop. 8 passed, it’s wrong and unconstitutional for the judges to permit counterfeit marriages in clear violation of Prop. 8,” said Randy Thomasson, president of SaveCalifornia.com, a statewide pro-family organization that has been fighting for natural marriage in California for more than a decade. “An arm and a leg have been cut off the natural institution of marriage in California.”