Go to: => TOP Page; What's New? Page; ROAD MAP; Shopping Mall; Emmaus Ministries Page; Search Page
[COMMENT: Best to start from the bottom and read up to get the sequence. It is a long read, but a good summary of some of the chief issues surrounding the fraudulent "legalization" of homosexual marriage, explaining why homosexual marriage is still illegal in every state in the Union. We MUST challenge the governors and the president on their collusion with the judiciary which is running interference and making a smoke-screen to cover the illegal activities of the executives.
The judiciary makes an innocuous statement which then the
executive "interprets" as "The Judiciary made me do it!" It is a
lie. The judiciary can do no such thing, and the governors know it.
They need to be impeached.
The Governor’s New Clothes; How Mitt Romney Brought Same-Sex Marriage To America
Part IV- Changing Common Law Did Not Change the Constitution
The SJC’s act of reformulating the common law meaning of marriage in contradiction to the constitutional meaning of the term "marriage," likewise, did not and could not change the constitutional meaning of the term and, therefore, is in and of itself an explicitly unconstitutional act. As a result it also has no legal significance.
The word “marriage” exists and therefore is already defined in the Massachusetts Constitution. That word has been there since the original signing.68] Its meaning is no less capable of being defined in the Constitution than it was capable of being construed in the statute. The SJC, nonetheless, ignored the word "marriage" in the Massachusetts Constitution.
“It is a fundamental principle of constitutional construction that every word and phrase in the Constitution was intended and has meaning. Passing public passions and emotions . . . have little to do with the meaning of the Constitution, as it is written. Commonwealth v. O'Neal, 369 Mass. 242 (1975) (TAURO, C.J., concurring). All [the] words [of the Constitution] must be presumed to have been chosen advisedly." Powers v. Secretary of Administration, 412 Mass. 119 (1992); Commonwealth v. Bergstrom, 402 Mass. 534, 541 (1988), quoting Mount Washington v. Cook, 288 Mass. 67, 70 (1934). Its phrases are to be read and construed according to the familiar and approved usage of the language. Yont v. Secretary of the Commonwealth, 275 Mass. 365 (1931), Jones v. Robbins, 8 Gray, 329, 340. Tax Commissioner v. Putnam, 227 Mass. 522, 523, 524. Attorney General v. Methuen, 236 Mass. 564, 573. Loring v. Young, 239 Mass. 349, 372. United States v. Sprague, 282 U. S. 716.).
The word “marriage,” because it exists in the Constitution, therefore contains a specific meaning; the very same meaning that the Supreme Judicial Court found that the marriage statute contains; the union between one man and one woman. The only reasonable interpretation that can be given to that word is the same interpretation that was given to that word in the statute; i.e., that the Framers did not intend that same-sex couples be licensed to marry.
Once it is comprehended that the word “marriage” in the Constitution has a fixed definition, one fatal flaw of the Goodridge decision becomes clear. It is an inherent logical contradiction to say that the current definition of a legal term (“marriage”) invoked explicitly by the Constitution since its original signing, somehow is unconstitutional because that definition (allegedly) violates other words in the Constitution (ensuring equal protection and due process); words that were written at the exact same time (by the same people) as the word in question. Such a contradiction “stands constitutional analysis on its head.”
To ignore the use of the explicit term in the Constitution, while declaring its actual (and limiting) definition unconstitutional, would render the use of that word “marriage,” as it exists in the Constitution, meaningless. But “words of the Constitution cannot be ignored as meaningless.” The words of the Constitution and its Amendments "are mandatory and not simply directory. They are highly important. There must be compliance with them. (emphasis added)” “If the meaning of [the word] is plain and [it is] not controlled by other words or by some clear demonstration that [it is] not to be taken in a literal sense, the plain literal meaning must prevail.”
No word, therefore, can be construed out of the Constitution. “[W]here the intention is clear there is no room for construction and no excuse for interpolation or addition."
From: Gregg Jackson Mon, Nov 24, 11:19 AMTo: Kerry L. Morgan, Esq Cc: John Haskins ; Tom Hoefling ; email@example.com ; Steve Deace ; Atty. Robert Paine ; Judge Roy Moore ((Alabama)) ; Staver, Mathew (Liberty Counsel) ; Jay Sekulow ; Herb Titus ; Mike HuckabeeRe: Question for you Jay Sekulow...Kerry, valid pts you make and think we are in total agreement about what the CA constitution says.And I totally understand that the ACLU is speciously arguing that the amendment is a "revision." That being said, my original argument is that when the marriage statute was codified into statutory law with Prop 22 defining marriage as one man and one woman, the legal definition of marriage as between one man and one woman never changed. As I have stated numerous times, only the people can revoke or amend an initiative statute which they never have. (not even the legislature nor the executive branch possesses any constitutional authority to amend or revoke in any way an initiative statute.)Therefore, regardless of whether or not the constitution is amended or not (which it clearly was), it still doesn't change the fact that the legal definition of marriage has never changed and Staver, Sekulow et al. all have failed to make this crucial legal points which constitutes legal malpractice as far as I am concerned. And all failed to take legal action initially against Schwarzenegger who illegally installed "gay marriage" in the first place.Not one of these men have ever stated once that Schwarzenegger broke the law and violated his oath by illegally authorizing the changes to and issuance of marriage licenses to same sex couples without a binding accompanying statute as required by California law. And that is clearly legal malpractice.I support their fighting the bogus ACLU law suit, but can't understand for the life of me why they have not gone after the one SOLELY responsible for illegally installing "gay marriage" in the first place. My guess is that it would implicate some of their friends and allies at ADF who bungled gay marriage in Mass and covered up for Romney (Glen Lavy, James Bopp, David French among others) and also the fact that they all believe that courts reign supreme. (all are legal positivists to various degrees).But I have cc'd Mr Staver and Sekulow on this e-mail and both are free to answer the questions I have posed numerous times as to why neither man has pursued legal action against Gov Schwarzenegger for illegally and unconstitutionally installing same sex "marriage" and why in the case of Mr. Sekulow he continues to support the man who illegally and unconstitutionally installed same sex "marriage" (not to mention establishing 50 dollar abortions as a "healthcare benefit" in his quasi-socialist healthcare plan) in Massachusetts, Mitt Romney.Gregg
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 7:24 AM, Kerry L. Morgan, Esq <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
Greg:The People amended the Const by initiative. The CA. Const says an initiative can amend the Const. So far so goodARTICLE 18 AMENDING AND REVISING THE CONSTITUTION
SEC. 3. The electors may amend the Constitution by initiative.
But the CA Const also has language about revising the Const.Art. 18, SEC. 2. The Legislature by rollcall vote entered in the journal, two-thirds of the membership of each house concurring, may submit at a general election the question whether to call a convention to revise the Constitution. If the majority vote yes on that question, within 6 months the Legislature shall provide for the convention. Delegates to a constitutional convention shall be voters elected from districts as nearly equal in population as may be practicable. Amending the Const and revising it are two different methods.The petitioners are arguing that the initative revised the Const., but failed to use the process of revision (failed to involve the legislature), Staver is saying no, the text of the constitutional change is an amendment, not a revision and its good.The reason the court is hearing the case is because courts have authority to review the constitutional provisions on amendments versus revision.So the petitioners are arguing that the people changed the const so radically that its a revision and as such you had to use the convention method and you didn't. Of course when they says this they are actually saying that the initiative amended the Ca Supreme Court's interpretation of the Ca. Supreme Const. ACLJ should argue that its the Ca supreme Cts view parading as the const, versus the amendment of the people which is the true const. text. The people should win because Courts don't make law, let alone const law. There is the true evil here.So is the initiative an amendment or revision is the narrow legal question. Of couse this is a sham argument but that is how the petitioners have framed it.Kerry L. MorganFri, Nov 21, 12:33 PMSubject: Question for you Jay Sekulow...Jay,On your radio show, "Jay Sekulow Live," Wednesday, in between appeals for money, you said the battle to protect marriage in California is being "waged in the courts."Here is my question to you, Jay:Since the judiciary doesn't possess the constitutional authority to "amend," "revoke," "strike down," or "overturn" initiative statutes (like Prop 22) and constitutional amendments, such as the one we just passed here in California, why do you continue to advance the liberal that that they do?Why do you and others such as Mat Staver at Liberty Counsel, continue to perpetuate the toxic liberal lie that the judiciary possesses law making authority strictly prohibited to them by the constitution?Why Jay, have you not filed suit against the one solely responsible, the one who actually DOES possess the authority to execute the laws and the one who illegally authorized amendments to and issuance of marriage certificates to same sex couples in direct violation of his sworn oath, Gov. Schwarzenegger?Is it because he is allegedly a "Republican?"Or Jay, is it because exposing Schwarzenegger would implicate the man who single-handedly unconstitutionally and illegally instituted gay "marriage" in Massachusetts's and who established 50 dollar abortions as a "heatlhcare benefit," Mitt Romney, the man who you supported for president?
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *