I think you did a nice job talking about the deceptive use of words in Jerry Brown's new ballot amendment. I think it is important that Californians understand that on California's new marriage licenses there are no more "husbands" and "wives" only "Party A" and "Party B."
On my website there are a couple of articles that basically "busts" the California Supreme Court for ordering everyone to use the word "marriage" in a deceptive way. I don't know if Judge George meant to do it or not, but he sort of confesses right in his opinion.
@Paul Benedict - Thank you for weighing in Paul. I will check out your blog.
Paul Benedict
· 1 year ago
I think you did a nice job talking about the deceptive use of words in Jerry Brown's new ballot amendment. I think it is important that Californians understand that on California's new marriage licenses there are no more "husbands" and "wives" only "Party A" and "Party B." On my website there are a couple of articles that basically "busts" the California Supreme Court for ordering everyone to use the word "marriage" in a deceptive way. I don't know if Judge George meant to do it or not, but he sort of confesses right in his opinion. <abbr>Paul Benedicts last blog post..Another Genius! on ... http://thetownscrier.blogspot.com</abbr>
Randy
· 1 year ago
@Paul Benedict - Thank you for weighing in Paul. I will check out your blog.
Brian
· 1 year ago
I'm concerned that the article from the FRC is factually inaccurate
Perhaps the most infuriating part of the new language is that it suggests homosexuals will somehow be deprived of a “right” to marry that does not exist (except in the minds of four activist judges).
The FRC may not like the Court's decision and they may be upset that gay couples now have a right to marriage, but they cannot truthfully state that it does not exist. The Supreme Court of California is charged with interpreting the state constitution. They found that barring gay couples from marriage is unconstitutional. That is now precedent and law of the land. It is no more "in the minds of judges" then the right to an integrated education.
Thus, the proposed amendment will in fact remove a right that currently exists. In California, same-sex couples have a legal right to civil marriage. The FRC may not like it, they may want it removed, but it exists.
I'm disappointed by this act of dishonesty :(
Randy
· 1 year ago
@Brian - I am disappointed you think it is dishonest. They believe what they are saying and have done a good job of describing the full context (in this with other articles) ... not just the misjudgment of the four judges. They believe, as do I, that those four judges completely abdicated their duty in order to pass their own opinion in the name of the CA constitution. They also trumped the state DOMA law to create a "right" out of thin air. (in our opinion.)
I can understand if you think their argument or reasoning is flawed but to say they are being dishonest ... ? That implies they know what your saying is true and choosing to lie about it.
Brian
· 1 year ago
I'm concerned that the article from the FRC is factually inaccurate
Perhaps the most infuriating part of the new language is that it suggests homosexuals will somehow be deprived of a “right†to marry that does not exist (except in the minds of four activist judges).
The FRC may not like the Court's decision and they may be upset that gay couples now have a right to marriage, but they cannot truthfully state that it does not exist. The Supreme Court of California is charged with interpreting the state constitution. They found that barring gay couples from marriage is unconstitutional. That is now precedent and law of the land. It is no more "in the minds of judges" then the right to an integrated education. Thus, the proposed amendment will in fact remove a right that currently exists. In California, same-sex couples have a legal right to civil marriage. The FRC may not like it, they may want it removed, but it exists. I'm disappointed by this act of dishonesty :(
Randy
· 1 year ago
@Brian - I am disappointed you think it is dishonest. They believe what they are saying and have done a good job of describing the full context (in this with other articles) ... not just the misjudgment of the four judges. They believe, as do I, that those four judges completely abdicated their duty in order to pass their own opinion in the name of the CA constitution. They also trumped the state DOMA law to create a "right" out of thin air. (in our opinion.) I can understand if you think their argument or reasoning is flawed but to say they are being dishonest ... ? That implies they know what your saying is true and choosing to lie about it.
Paul Benedict
· 1 year ago
I also thought I saw somewhere that Attorney General Brown believes that the language in Proposition 8 is not retroactive. Brown clearly has a bias in his perception of this issue. Since the California Supremes did not even hear the case, why does Brown think he has a right to alter the language in any way?
The honesty issue might be made all the muddier by remembering that Chief Justice George is using the word "marry" in a very different way than either Proposition 8 or 22 did. To Chief Justice George "marriage" is a nebulous and undefined patchwork of rights that, appearing or disappearing at the whim of government, are conferred on people "Party A" and "Party B". That's not exactly marriage-- not the way it’s meant in Prop. 8 or 22.
I also thought I saw somewhere that Attorney General Brown believes that the language in Proposition 8 is not retroactive. Brown clearly has a bias in his perception of this issue. Since the California Supremes did not even hear the case, why does Brown think he has a right to alter the language in any way? The honesty issue might be made all the muddier by remembering that Chief Justice George is using the word "marry" in a very different way than either Proposition 8 or 22 did. To Chief Justice George "marriage" is a nebulous and undefined patchwork of rights that, appearing or disappearing at the whim of government, are conferred on people "Party A" and "Party B". That's not exactly marriage-- not the way it’s meant in Prop. 8 or 22. <abbr>Paul Benedicts last blog post..Another Genius! on ... http://thetownscrier.blogspot.com</abbr>
All Comments
On my website there are a couple of articles that basically "busts" the California Supreme Court for ordering everyone to use the word "marriage" in a deceptive way. I don't know if Judge George meant to do it or not, but he sort of confesses right in his opinion.
<abbr>Paul Benedicts last blog post..Another Genius! on ... http://thetownscrier.blogspot.com</abbr>
On my website there are a couple of articles that basically "busts" the California Supreme Court for ordering everyone to use the word "marriage" in a deceptive way. I don't know if Judge George meant to do it or not, but he sort of confesses right in his opinion.
<abbr>Paul Benedicts last blog post..Another Genius! on ... http://thetownscrier.blogspot.com</abbr>
The FRC may not like the Court's decision and they may be upset that gay couples now have a right to marriage, but they cannot truthfully state that it does not exist. The Supreme Court of California is charged with interpreting the state constitution. They found that barring gay couples from marriage is unconstitutional. That is now precedent and law of the land. It is no more "in the minds of judges" then the right to an integrated education.
Thus, the proposed amendment will in fact remove a right that currently exists. In California, same-sex couples have a legal right to civil marriage. The FRC may not like it, they may want it removed, but it exists.
I'm disappointed by this act of dishonesty :(
I am disappointed you think it is dishonest. They believe what they are saying and have done a good job of describing the full context (in this with other articles) ... not just the misjudgment of the four judges. They believe, as do I, that those four judges completely abdicated their duty in order to pass their own opinion in the name of the CA constitution. They also trumped the state DOMA law to create a "right" out of thin air. (in our opinion.)
I can understand if you think their argument or reasoning is flawed but to say they are being dishonest ... ? That implies they know what your saying is true and choosing to lie about it.
The FRC may not like the Court's decision and they may be upset that gay couples now have a right to marriage, but they cannot truthfully state that it does not exist. The Supreme Court of California is charged with interpreting the state constitution. They found that barring gay couples from marriage is unconstitutional. That is now precedent and law of the land. It is no more "in the minds of judges" then the right to an integrated education.
Thus, the proposed amendment will in fact remove a right that currently exists. In California, same-sex couples have a legal right to civil marriage. The FRC may not like it, they may want it removed, but it exists.
I'm disappointed by this act of dishonesty :(
I am disappointed you think it is dishonest. They believe what they are saying and have done a good job of describing the full context (in this with other articles) ... not just the misjudgment of the four judges. They believe, as do I, that those four judges completely abdicated their duty in order to pass their own opinion in the name of the CA constitution. They also trumped the state DOMA law to create a "right" out of thin air. (in our opinion.)
I can understand if you think their argument or reasoning is flawed but to say they are being dishonest ... ? That implies they know what your saying is true and choosing to lie about it.
The honesty issue might be made all the muddier by remembering that Chief Justice George is using the word "marry" in a very different way than either Proposition 8 or 22 did. To Chief Justice George "marriage" is a nebulous and undefined patchwork of rights that, appearing or disappearing at the whim of government, are conferred on people "Party A" and "Party B". That's not exactly marriage-- not the way it’s meant in Prop. 8 or 22.
<abbr>Paul Benedicts last blog post..Another Genius! on ... http://thetownscrier.blogspot.com</abbr>
The honesty issue might be made all the muddier by remembering that Chief Justice George is using the word "marry" in a very different way than either Proposition 8 or 22 did. To Chief Justice George "marriage" is a nebulous and undefined patchwork of rights that, appearing or disappearing at the whim of government, are conferred on people "Party A" and "Party B". That's not exactly marriage-- not the way it’s meant in Prop. 8 or 22.
<abbr>Paul Benedicts last blog post..Another Genius! on ... http://thetownscrier.blogspot.com</abbr>