Media Works To Squelch NEW Challenge On CA's Prop 8

Sihouette

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2008
Messages
1,635
Well it's been more than a week and not a peep from the media on one of the most important NEW challenges to the Prop 8 rulings. They're digging up the Zimmerman trial, talking about a royal birth, kicking around nuances of Obamacare, pandas being born...anything but this topic. Even Fox is in on the conspicuous silence...

Yet the case is filed and moving forward. Filed Friday, July 12, 2013

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND REQUEST FOR
IMMEDIATE STAY OR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF;
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
STAY REQUESTED TO FORBID ISSUANCE OF MARRIAGE
LICENSES IN VIOLATION OF STATE LAW

...This Court’s case law requires executive officials charged
with ministerial duties to execute those duties regardless of their or others’
views about the constitutionality of the laws imposing those duties. Yet
Respondents are violating their ministerial duties by issuing marriage
licenses in violation of state law. Petitioners are thus entitled to a writ of
mandate requiring Respondents to comply with state law defining marriage
as a union between a man and a woman.
99. Article III, section 3.5 of the California Constitution prohibits
government agencies and officials from declaring state law unenforceable,
or declining to enforce state law, on the basis that the law is
unconstitutional, unless an appellate court has first made that
determination. The Ninth Circuit’s decision in Perry has been vacated;
hence there is no appellate decision holding that Proposition 8 is
unconstitutional. Petitioners are thus entitled to a writ of mandate requiring
Respondents to comply with state law defining marriage as a union
between a man and a woman.
http://gallery.mailchimp.com/cd3e28...2013.07.11_Petition_FINAL_WITH_SIGNATURES.pdf

There is some movement to corral this case at the State level. A desperation to keep it there, lest it find it's way to the language in DOMA Opinion last month http://www.scribd.com/doc/150137274/Supreme-Court-DOMA-Opinion

It's not an accident that the Supreme Court decided to hear both cases at the same sitting. They wanted the two of them linked on purpose. I pondered about why until I actually read the DOMA opinion. The Prop 8 Opinion reads as clear as mud on a definitive outcome. DOMA is a different bird. In it, it defines over and over, on nearly every page, that in the larger context of the gay marriage question, states and not the federal government have the "unquestioned authority" to define marriage within their fences. All states that is, except California, according to the inferior opinion of Governor/King Jerry the Brown of CA.

King Brown and his oligarchy-of-consort have decided that of the 50 states promised the right to choose on gay marriage in DOMA Opinion last month, just California cannot. And in so deciding that, have issued threats to all the County Clerks in that state of being found in contempt of Court if they do not issue marriage licenses in violation of Law there.

California has an system of legislating where individuals vote through the initiative system and the power of their individual vote is affirmed through it. All this is guaranteed in Article II of their constitution. Except, and only except, when it comes to Prop 8. There has been no Superior Court Ruling that Prop 8 is "unconstitutional" for defining marriage to not include gays, polygamists and minors. Only a lower court ruling or two that says so. However, they are stale and inferior to last month's DOMA Decision which says the polar opposite: that states can and must decide themselves on gay marriage [so Saying, also ruling that gay marriage is not a civil right]. So King Brown ordering County Clerks under threat of "contempt of court" is heavy handed and tyrannical.

And this is true especially under the light of the original "court"he claims they are in "contempt" of. It was a kangaroo court with a gay judge who wanted to marry his boyfriend at the time he sat on the question of Prop 8's constituitonality. And at the time the gay judge Walker practiced active witness suppression of those defending Prop 8. He threatened [a gay theme of action it seems] to air the hearing on youtube, in violation of court rules. And in so doing effectively scared off most of the Prop 8 defender's witnesses. Of the ones that showed up and testified, he ridiculed their testimony from credentialled men and gave pro-gay laymen more weight. One Prop 8 defender he allowed to testify, he later in his Ruling just deleted the testimony on nothing more than his personal whim.

I bring all this up becuase this case is not just a case defending Prop 8 anymore. It's a case defending the 7 million majority and the California initiative system itself behind the ratifying of Prop 8...about an outright attack on democracy at it's core by the Rainbow Wildfire. When our founding fathers escaped the tyranny of King George, they were running from exactly these types of mock trials, kangaroo justice and circumvention of due process: ie: tyranny of a monarchy. We set up the very bedrock of Law at the highest level to keep this from EVER happening again.

Yet today, in the state of California, a monarchy is born. It's colors are bright and fun, appealing to children. But it's mechanisms are dark, colorless plagues on our freedoms to determine our own social destinies via a majority democracy. If you think the problem is limited just to California, think again. This outlaw behavior behind the People's Will and in defiance of the recent DOMA Ruling is the vehicle by which the gay mafia is going to "fake it till they make it" in burning every vestige of the culture it isn't shy about demanding complete eradication of. If you care about our country, you'll care about this case.

And you'll get the word out to as many discussion boards as you can so that the liberal gay media and the Cheney-owned [he has a lesbian daughter] Fox News actually reports on the tyranny of the Rainbow Wildfire.
 
Werbung:
Back
Top