Go to: => TOP Page;   What's New? Page;   ROAD MAP;   Shopping Mall;   Emmaus Ministries Page;   Search Page


California Law & Homosexual "Marriage"

[COMMENT:  The following long discussion came originally as several emails, and represents so far as I can tell, the facts in California on the recent CA Supreme Court trashing of Proposition 22 establishing marriage as between one man and one woman. 

Sc (name disguised) holds the position that the governor is not the major culprit, that we should go after the courts.  The others are responding to his view, rightly I think, that the governors are the criminals in the woodpile.  In my uneducated opinion, there has been collusion between homosexual advocates, the judiciary, and the governor.  One more way to violate separation of powers. 

I think the Marbury v. Madison decision (see below) needs to be revisited, as its effect seems to be to have given the US Supreme Court the right to make law, and thus cross the Separation of Powers boundaries..  That gives the Court totalitarian power over the government and the people. 

The truth is that several presidents have ignored that opinion, and ignored decisions of the Court, including both Jackson and Lincoln. 

One problem with the principle is that it was apparently decided by the Court itself (self-serving?).  It affirmed its own right to authoritatively review legislation.  The principle of Separation of Powers speaks strongly against such a view -- because the Court then crosses into making laws rather than judging who has violated them and the punishment to be applied.   So far as I know, there has never been a voice of We, the People, which has affirmed the right of the Court for "judicial review" in that total sense.     

You have to start below from the bottom and read up to get the flow of the emails.  But it gives a good summary of the volatile issues which are at stake.  For me this has been a profound experience and an enlightenment as to how we can begin to deal with the real issues.  We have been seduced into fighting the wrong dragon -- the judiciary rather than the executive.   We must target the executive as well as the others. 

All three branches are corrupt, but the executive is the only one which can enforce a law.  Enforcement is the power reserved to it in the separation of powers.  The legislature tells the executive how to use the enforcement, and the judiciary decides who has broken the law, and decides the punishment, which the executive carries out.     E. Fox]
 

(Note: these three next points are not consecutive in the original.)  Grg (red print) is responding to Sc's comment that...

Yes the oath [by the governor] is important.  Yes the violation deserves condemnation.

Condemnation? Doesn't Schwartzenegger technically deserve to be removed from office for violating his oath only to "faithfully execute the laws and statutes of the state of California?"  Yes or no?
 

It's still a "technical formality" in the context in which I used the term

How is violating your oath and breaking the law a "technical formality?" I don't follow your rationale. Please explain.

The court, since its earliest days, decides what is constitutional.  Marbury v. Madison.  It can declare legislation, by reps or the people themselves, invalid.  Prop 22 was not a Const Amendment, but the new initiative is.  The court cannot invalidate the new one, because it will Be a part of the constitution.

Again, according to our constitution here in CA, only the sovereign people of the state can revoke or amend an initiative statute.  Neither of the other 3 branches can revoke or amend an initiative statute in any way. The court has every right to issue an advisory opinion in regards to the constitutionality of a law or statute, but it is merely advisory.  They have no constitutional authority to enforce their opinions.

Judge Baxter stated this very thing in his dissent [to the CA courts rejection of Prop. 22]:

"Under Article 2, section 10, subdivision (c) that body (the judiciary) cannot unilaterally repeal an initiative statute, such as family code section 308.5, unless the initiative measure itself so provides. Section 308.5 contains no such provision."

Your friends whom you cite in your previous e-mail, attorney Kr (whom I will cc) as well as my friend here in California Ra Th, both agree with Baxter that the court has no constitutional authority to invalidate an initiative statute.  I have spoken with both of them.  It is also important to note that there is legal precedent for this. Only a few months back (April 24,2008) in Sondermann Ring Prtners v Buenaventura the court declared,  "The courts can declare an action of the Legislature unconstitutional where such action exceeds the limits of the constitution, but the courts have no means and no power to avoid the effects of non-action."

Question: Can you please show me in the CA constitution where the judiciary has the enumerated authority to "invalidate" an initiative statute such as Prop 22?

 


Sc said: 
The judiciary IS committing a crime, . . .
 
Bri Ca replies:  Not exactly.  The judiciary is acting without legal authority.  They are acting illegally.  But they are not necessarily committing a crime -- unless you could argue they are obstructing justice . . . and then only if obstruction of justice is a crime in California.  Not sure about that.

Sc said:
 
. . . It is they that have given themselves the power to
overthrow the fundamental moral order of civilization. 
 
WRONG Sc:  Nemo dat qui non habet ("You cannot give what you do not have").  The Court cannot give themselves power they do not have.  They can only exercise the power granted to them by the People through the written Constitution.  This is so obvious it does not need an example.  But to be clear, if the Court granted themselves the power to control of everyone's bank account . . . I doubt they would get very far.  The reason why they get as far as they do in giving "themselves the power to overthrow the fundamental moral order of civilization" is because NO ONE REALLY CARES that they are doing that.  The mushy middle would never stand for it with their bank accounts.  The "conservative defenders of marriage and life," would never call TAKING MONEY FROM MY BANK ACCOUNT, a "technical formality."  NO ONE CARES . . . no matter  how much they get paid to act like they do -- No matter how long nor how lucrative their career defending marriage and life has been.

Sc said:
 
Romney and Schwartzenegger are merely tools of implementation. 
 
No Romney and Shwarzenegger are the carpenters.  They take the plans from the Court and implement them no matter whether the owners (we the people) want those plans executed or not -- regardless of what the contract and building permits allow.

The carpenters are wielding their tools and rebuilding our society so that by the time they are finished it is no longer recognizable.  The tools they use are their brazen disregard for the law and our apathy, failure to keep abreast (of our history, our constitutions, statutes, ordinances, impeachment options, etc.) , lack of knowledge of the facts, laziness, cowardice, friendships, conflicts of interest, and general inability to muster up the courage to stand up and fight like a man in a streetfight.  

The carpenters build a whore house in the exact location where the permit said a Church was to be built, on property owned by the faithful. They do it in broad daylight while pastors, bishops and the faithful, stand quietly by watching and scratching their heads saying "Can they do that?  I thought we paid for a Church?  I thought the permit said to buld a Church? This is really wrong.  And we won't stand for it next time." 

The truth is we are pathetic in our inability to defend ourselves and to act aggressively.  The slightest bit of aggressive action taken on our behalf is scoffed at and ridiculed, not by our enemies, but by "us."

Sc said:
 
I agree there must be legislative implementation before the executive should act, but that is a technical formality. 
 
SC WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?   I understand you are a lawyer.  I am shocked.  You see no need for a legislative branch?    What is the need for the legislature if the executive's duty is that they "should" follow the law? 
 
[Aside: while you ponder that puzzle, ask yourself why the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court gave the legislature 180 days after Goodridge to act consistent with their opinion?  What if the legislature would have the audacity  not to act within 180 days - coonsistent with their opinion? -- which the legislature did not act -- what happens in 180  days?  Magically the legislature is no longer needed after 180 days?  Why then would they have been needed in the first place?  This is so inherently inconsistent and was so missed by our legal geniuses "defending" us in Massachusetts.  It is shameful.]
 

The operative word in your sentence is MUST.  Without legislative authority, the executive has NO LEGAL AUTHORITY TO ACT.  So the executive is not simply being courteous to the legislature in allowing them to pass laws.  The executive CANNOT ACT without the law authorizing the actions.   Any action by the executive not authorized by the Constitution or the statutes is a null and void action.  It is as if it did not happen, because in truth and in law, IT DID NOT HAPPEN. 

Technically it is a strike not a ball.  Technically you were traveling at 90mph. Technically you don't own that piece of land.  Technically, he is not your father.  Technically he killed the girl.  The law is one big techicalty.  Follow it and you are in compliance.  Don't and you are "technically" violating the law.

Technically, it is a crime to allow the solemnization of a marriage in violation of the laws of California:
PENAL 360

 
 TITLE 9. OF CRIMES AGAINST THE PERSON INVOLVING SEXUAL ASSAULT, AND CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC DECENCY AND GOOD MORALS  -  CHAPTER 12. OTHER INJURIES TO PERSONS
Every person authorized to solemnize any marriage, who solemnizes a marriage without first being presented with the marriage license, as required by Section 421 of the Family Code; or who solemnizes a marriage pursuant to Part 4 (commencing with Section 500) of Division 3 of the Family Code without the authorization required by that part; or who willfully makes a false return of any marriage or pretended marriage to the recorder or clerk and every person who willfully makes a false record of any marriage return, is guilty of a misdemeanor.

 
Technically, that crime carries with it a jail sentence
 
PENAL 19
Except in cases where a different punishment is prescribed by any law of this state, every offense declared to be a misdemeanor is punishable by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding six months, or by fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both.
 


Technically some people can find themselves in jail for violating that part of the California Penal Code.

Sc said: 
 
It is like saying that a contract cannot be valid until the wife signs it along with the husband.  If you know the wife desires and intends to sign the contract, where's the harm if the salesman lets the man drive the car off the lot before she actually does?  It's not right, but...
 
BUT WHAT.  YOUR ANALOGY IS TOTALLY FALSE.  You used an example where the wife would have signed the contract.  We are dealing with a situation where the wife WOULD NOT HAVE SIGNED THE CONTRACT.  THE PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA HAVE VOTED AGAINST SAME-SEX MARRIAGE OVERWHELMINGLY.  The people would not have allowed this.

A better analogy then is when the wife WOULD NOT HAVE SIGNED THE CONTRACT.  Let's look at how the courts handle situations in which a person HAS NO LEGAL AUTHORITY TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT.  Notice that title/authoirty/ownership DOES NOT PASS to one from one who DID NOT HAVE PROPER AUTHORITY to pass it on.  Keep in mind . . . Nemo dat qui non habet ("You cannot give what you do not have"):

 
Russell v. Secretary of Commonwealth, 304 Mass. 181, 187 (1939) ("A suggestion of the death of the petitioner on September 22, 1939, has been filed in each case by his administratrix. She has also filed motions that she be substituted as party petitioner in each case. Those motions are allowed. She, however, has no greater rights than her intestate had, and the motions to dismiss filed by the respondents are allowed, and in each case the petition is dismissed.); 

Cleaveland v. Malden Savings Bank, 291 Mass. 295 (1934) ("The plaintiff did not ratify and confirm the deed to her son, but on the contrary, on recovering her sanity, successfully proceeded in equity against him to set aside the deed on the ground that it was a void instrument because of her mental incapacity at the time it was executed. . . .  [T]he deed was void from its inception. If the mental incompetency of the plaintiff is established in a proceeding by which the defendant is bound, the defendant as an innocent purchaser for value from the son to the extent of its mortgage stands no better than the son and acquired no title to the land. . . . Since the deed of the plaintiff to the son has been declared void, she has been in truth the owner of the land at all times here material.")

Keville v. Mckeever, 42 Mass. App. Ct. 140 (1997)  ("The judge found that the Harvard Avenue deed was forged and, accordingly, the Porsche Realty Trust mortgage was void. ... If the mental incompetency of the plaintiff is established in a proceeding by which the defendant is bound, the defendant as an innocent purchaser for value from the son to the extent of its mortgage stands no better than the son and acquired no title to the land. Since the deed of the plaintiff to the son has been declared void, she has been in truth the owner of the land at all times here material." (Citations omitted.)."); 

Lawson v. Rowley, 185 Mass. 171, 172-173 (1904) (statute expressly gave to justices of peace the power to punish contempt by a fine, but without an express grant to punish in any other way, that power is limited to punishment by fine).
 

Sc said:
 
And from the legal standpoint, if the legislature implemented "gay marriage" before the trial of the Gov, the whole case would be moot as a practical matter.
 
THIS IS ABSOLUTE RUBBISH.  First, the violation of a law does not become moot even if the law were to be subsequently repealed.  Second, you obviously have not read the California opinion, the dissenting opinion, nor the California Constitution.  The law here was created by the people though a citizen's initiative.  The Constitution explicitly protects that law from the legislature.  The legislature has NO LEGAL AUTHORITY TO REPEAL a law enacted by the people, without their consent. 

Bri Ca,
Massachusetts
 

On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 4:14 PM, EFox2 <efox2@theroadtoemmaus.org> wrote:
Sc,

       Thanks for your reply.

       The Big Question which has been driving this vigorous discussion
(unless I am missing something) is:

       Why are so many conservative leaders focusing on the judiciary which
in most cases has done nothing illegal, rather than on the executive which
is apparently committing a felony crime?  And why are you in particular not
going after Schwarzenegger and Romney on that issue, both of whom appear to
be (or were) enforcing laws for which they have had no legislative
authority?

       There may be perfectly good reasons, but many of us on this email
list are unaware of what they might be.

Resurrection Blessings, Earle Fox
 



On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 10:33 PM, John Haskins <jhaskins@hisurfer.net> wrote:
 
From: "Sc
 
Earle,

I wasn't going to participate in any more of this discussion, but your
question is worth coming back to answer.

The judiciary IS committing a crime, and is the proper focus of our
anger, because homosexuality cannot ever be a legitimate basis for
civil rights.  It is they that have given themselves the power to
overthrow the fundamental moral order of civilization.  Romney and
Schwartzenegger are merely tools of implementation.  I agree there
must be legislative implementation before the executive should act,
but that is a technical formality.  It is like saying that a contract
cannot be valid until the wife signs it along with the husband.  If
you know the wife desires and intends to sign the contract, where's
the harm if the salesman lets the man drive the car off the lot before
she actually does?  It's not right, but...

Sure, we would have another shot at stopping the process if the Govs
waited for legislative implementation, but the fact is that both CA
and MA legislatures WANT to grant "gay" marriage, so the end result is
virtually certain.  Getting that delay IS a worthwhile goal, and my
friends Gary Kreep of United Justice Foundation and Randy Thomasson of
Campaign for Ca Families tried that in CA and failed, as I predicted
they would because their case is (by necessity) in the same corrupt
judicial system that made the bad ruling in the first place.

So what you get as a result from all the lust for making everyone
attack the Govs is simply punishment of them.  Sure, they deserve
punishment, but that's a whole different issue than stopping "gay
marriage."  I'm focused on stopping the homosexual agenda, not
punishing liberals for being liberal.  And from the legal standpoint,
if the legislature implemented "gay marriage" before the trial of the
Gov, the whole case would be moot as a practical matter.

So, while the constitutional question IS a big deal in preserving the
rule of law for our nation -- it IS NOT the solution to the "gay
marriage" problem.  The only real solution is a political one
(spiritually motivated and maintained).  We need to take back the
seats of power from the homosexuals and their stooges, and that is
going to take people who want to build, not destroy.

The real problem is that we have a populist mindset.  All of our
efforts have been oriented toward rallying the people.  Meanwhile, the
"gays", who never had any illusions of support from a "silent
majority," have been building themselves bases of actual financial and
political power.  They can now buy or take most of what they want,
while our side is still hoping for a revolution that grows more
unlikely every day.  We're losing and that's not going to change
through yelling or pressure tactics from our side.

I came back to my home state of MA to start over.  I'm building my own
base of finacial and political power, through the efforts of my own
church congregation, which is following a Biblical doctrine of
Christian activism.  I think the only way to restore Christianity as
the guiding force of society is to take the society back from the
ground up, operating in every sphere of social influence: church,
commerce, politics, education, etc.

Thanks for listening.

In Jesus,

Sc


On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 4:14 PM, EFox2 <efox2@theroadtoemmaus.org> wrote:
Sc,
       Thanks for your reply.

       The Big Question which has been driving this vigorous discussion
(unless I am missing something) is:

       Why are so many conservative leaders focusing on the judiciary which
in most cases has done nothing illegal, rather than on the executive which
is apparently committing a felony crime?  And why are you in particular not
going after Schwarzenegger and Romney on that issue, both of whom appear to
be (or were) enforcing laws for which they have had no legislative
authority?

       There may be perfectly good reasons, but many of us on this email
list are unaware of what they might be.

Resurrection Blessings, Earle Fox

** Emmaus Ministries - a School of Judeo-Christian Apologetics
** 1001 W. Lambert Rd #232, La Habra, CA 90631
** http://theRoadToEmmaus.org
 **** We have two choices:
 **** Jesus is Lord, or...
 **** ...Civil government will be lord.
 

----- Original Message -----
From: "Sc" <sdllaw@gmail.com>
To: "EFox2" <

Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2008 4:33 AM
What exactly are the questions you want answered?  Please keep them
short.  I have very little spare time.

On 6/17/08, EFox2 <efox2@theroadtoemmaus.org> wrote:

Sc, (et al),

       I have known little of your history, Sc, have no reason to
doubt that your story below is true, and am grateful for your contributions to
sanity.  

But I do not see the relevance of it regarding the issue which
is being discussed, namely that the focus ought to be, not on the courts,
though, yes, they have their sins.  It ought to be on the executive
branch, because the courts have no enforcing powers, and rely almost totally on
the executive branch to enforce their decisions.  So any breaking of the law
will be done almost always by the execs., the enforcers.  If the enforcer
obeys the law, then the judiciary is impotent to break much of it with
any serious effect.  Likewise for the legislature.  The big failure of the
legislature has been in disciplining the executive, which it has the
power to do.  At least at the national level.

       It is as though we have a crap-game going with the judiciary
deflecting our attention so that the executive can get away with trashing
the constitution.  "The judiciary made me do it!"   This con-game has to
be deliberate.  As FDR said, if it  happens in politics, someone planned it.

       If it is true that the judiciary, I suppose in every state across
America, is impotent to change the law, then for what possible reason
could anyone refuse to go after the executive who is doing the real harm?  It
is not complicated, it is simple common sense.  So far I have not seen
anyone respond directly to the challenges on that score from Grg, John, or
others.

       That must raise questions for those listening in -- Why will you
all not respond to the questions?  It has been that simple fact of refusal to
respond directly which has persuaded me (well, along with my experience
with Episcopal pseudo-conservative leaders) that something is far more rotten
in the State of Denmark than I had thought.  Reading this current debate, I
saw clarly things which I had vaguely suspected for a long time.  You and
others could resolve the matter with respect at least to yourselves in an
instant by giving a reasonable and direct response to this central issue of the
judiciary and the executive guilt in the matter.

       Grg and John are absolutely correct that millions (!) of little
babies have died because our pseudo-conservative leadership could not
stand up and be counted.  Millions of intelligent adults are dying or suffering
terrible diseases because they will not obey the laws of God on
sexuality, and are being given a judicial pass by "conservatives".  It is
unconscionable that we "conservatives" have allowed our government to get
away with this judicial activism scam.  It is executive activism, with
the judiciary running interference.  And behind them is the globalist shadow
government.  And behind them is The Enemy.  We MUST shine the light of
truth on all of them.

       If the Christian community had stood up with the truth 40-50
years ago, we would not have seen these terrible and tragic years, with blood
on all of our hands.

       I believe that God is raising up a new Gideon army, that it takes
only a small committed minority to change a society, and that it will be
made up of those who are committed to the Way of the Cross, living in the
Light, to telling the truth at any cost to themselves, and who will stand
together under the authority of Jesus Christ.

       And welcome to those of other persuasions who will work with us.
America belongs to those of any stripe who will fight for the
intellectual,
moral, and spiritual integrity of the common public discussion.   And
*not*
to those who deny that.

Resurrection Blessings, Earle Fox

** Emmaus Ministries - a School of Judeo-Christian Apologetics
** 1001 W. Lambert Rd #232, La Habra, CA 90631
** http://theRoadToEmmaus.org
 **** We have two choices:
 **** Jesus is Lord, or...
 **** ...Civil government will be lord.
 

----- Original Message -----
From: "Sc
Sent: Sunday, June 15,
Subject: Re: Read this answer, P! And look in the mirror.

Where have I been in the culture war?  I guess you can't see me down
here in the trenches from your computer chair.

But I'll not blast you in proportion to what your message deserves.  I
do believe in mercy.

First to the underlying substance. Truth is that the courts are as
political as the legislature and we let both fall into enemy hands a
long time ago.  Romney's betrayal and now Arnold's is, as a practical
matter, moot.  The "gays" in MA and CA get whatever they want because
they control the courts and legislatures.  Do you suppose the same MA
reps who just voted to deny the people a vote on our initiative would
have refused to implement the court's wishes on "gay marriage?"  They
also voted for "gay marriage' in CA last year and were stopped only by
Arnold who signed the other 4 or 5 of their bills.

Wake up and smell the totalitarianism, my friend.  All this
hand-wringing about failed leadership on our side is about 15-20 years
too late, literally.  We lost these battles around the time when the
church across America declined to support my organization's Ballot
Measure 9 in 1992 in Oregon which would have declared homosexuality
"abnormal, unnatural and perverse" in the Constitution -- and killed
every aspect of "gay rights." We stood alone against the combined
forces of the international "gay" movement and lost by only 45-55%.
We tried again in 94 and lost by 1% -- again standing alone.  I was
the chief spokesman for those ballot measures and I personally paid a
higher price in those campaigns than anyone I've seen since.  I won't
bore you with the details.  You can read my autobiography if you like.

So in 95 I went to law school to get better skills to fight the war.
And wrote "anti-gay" books and did media (over 500 appearances) in
that process.

Then from 97-present I set up Abiding Truth Ministries as my ministry
organization and fought every pro-family battle I could find -- all
over the country, and set up the Pro-Family Charitable Trust to try
and grow my own "Foundation" to compete with the "gays".  I build the
most extensive archive of pro-family resources in the world (I
believe) at www.defendthefamily.com and published a whole series of
resources for pro-family actrivists and advocates. My essays and
booklets are used in pro-family debate training and by activists
around the world, and are all avail for free on my site.

>From 2004-2006 I, through my Pro-Family Law Center (which I set up in
2000 specifically to fight the "gay" agenda in the courts), personally
took a case all the way through the 9th Circuit and was denied cert as
the Supremes.  The issue was whether the phrase "natural family,
marriage and family values" could be censored as hate speech by the
City of Oakland.  My plaintiffs were 2 African-American Christian
women.  It was the perfect case to pit the First Amendment againt
"sexual orientation" laws, and guess what?  The courts sided with the
"gays."  I went head-to-head with a three-judge panel of the 9th Cir
in special session in the moot court room at Stanford University and
hit them with undeniable law and logic -- but these are unpersuasive
to the reprobate mind. I lost my naivete about "the law" the hard way.

>From 2006-2007 I travelled to more than a dozen countries trying to
build an international coalition of pro-family leaders who could help
us here in the US, and lectured in universities and preached in
churches to warn others not to let the same "gay" agenda take root
there.

So don't ask me where I've been in this war. It's been my ministry,
every day, for 20 years.

You and John Haskins want to come riding in here at the 11th hour on
your virtual white horses like avenging angels, full of
self-righteousness and recriminations.

"Look how great we are for condemning Schwartzenegger!!"  It is a waste
of time.

Me.  I've picked a small city to try to reform and rebuild from the
ground up through Christian activism.  I'm still fighting to stop
their agenda, because not to do so just lets them move faster, but I
don't believe we're going to stop them until the church shows -- by
example -- that our way is better. And meanwhile I'm writing my 5th
book A Christian Response to the "Gay" Agenda, (on which my Doctor of
Theology is based) which wraps all 20 years of observations and
analysis into one textbook for pro-family people.

So if you really want to do something useful, come to Spgfld
as a missionary and help me reform our 10 sq mile Redemptioon Zone.

In Jesus, Sc
 


On 6/14/08, Grg  wrote:
> Sc, you say that" Mercy is supposed to triumph over judgment." But
Truth supercedes them both my friend.
>
> Today in my state of California Governor Schwartzenegger illegally
> issued tens of thousands of marriage licences to same sex couples (just like
Mitt Romney did) in direct violation of the CA marriage statutes enshrined
into law in 2000 by we the sovereign people of CA as well as the constitution
itself which denies to the judiciary or executive any legislative powers.
>
> Where have you been Sc? Why did neither you nor any of your peers > at
FRC and the other "legal organizations" that "John Haskins so clearly
doesn't understand" warn the citizens of our nation about
Schwartzenegger's illegal actions in which he illegally authorized changes to the marriage
certificates and illegally ordered justices of the peace and town clerks
to   violate their oaths by performing and solemnizing same sex "marriage"
ceremonies?
>
> Where were you Sc? Why didn't you warn the people?
>
> Instead of arrogantly dismissing John Haskin's comments and urging > him
> to "reintegrate" himself into the "movement," I would suggest you ask
yourself the more germane question which is why those in the so called "pro-
family movement" including yourself were deafeningly silent w regards to
Schwartzenegger"s illegal actions over the last month? ( As you were when
the founding father of same sex marriage, Mitt Romney, was illegally
instituting it in the Cradle of Democracy)
>
> While I and the "self righteous" John Haskins and others have been
> trying to warn Americans via radio, tv, internet, and print around the country
about Schwartzenegger's "termination" of the CA constitution, where were
you Sc?
>
> Why didn"t you warn the people?

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Go to: => TOP Page;   State Govts;   Constitution;   ROAD MAP

Date Posted -  --/--/2008   -   Date Last Edited - 09/15/2012