Same-Sex “Marriage” Illegal in All Fifty States…..

The way this country is going is totally off the charts and stupid. The founding fathers put in safe-guards that would protect the constitution, and the states did the same things. Take California for instance:

About a month ago, the California Supreme Court, in a 4 – 3 decision, issued a declaratory opinion that Proposition 22 (which is the state’s law that only “a marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in California,” that was voted into statutory law by a 61.4% majority of California voters in 2000, was unconstitutional on the basis that it discriminated against gender, and that it violates the equal protection clause of the state constitution. But here is the problem with this people.

According to the California Constitution, only the people can revoke or amend an initiative statute such as Proposition 22. Same-Sex “marriage” remains, therefore, illegal, because it was voted in by judges, not the electorate, as the state Constitution says it has to be. From the LA Times, this was said:

“The California Supreme Court struck down the state’s ban on same-sex marriage Thursday in a broadly worded decision that would invalidate virtually any law that discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation.”

The California Supreme Court issued a decaratory opinion that, in the view of the bare majority, banning same sex couples from marrying was unconstitutional and that the language of the initiative statute limiting marriage to one man and one woman must be stricken from the statute. Unfortunately however, the court doesn’t have the constitutional authority to re-write the marriage statute nor any other initiative statute for that matter. According to the California Constitution, only the people can revoke or amend an initiative statute such as Prop 22.

the court said the plaintiffs were entitled to the issuance of a “writ of mandate” but issued no actual writ to state officials to perform the ministerial act of issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Even if they had issued a “mandate,” state officials are sworn to execute the law and not effectuate a court’s opinion.

Moreover, any court mandate or “order” would have been both unenforceable and invalid, since, according to a recent California Court of Appeals rulling from April of 2008, Sondermann Ring Partners vs. Buenaventura, the court 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 non-action. in other words, the court is not constitutionally permitted to enforce its opinion.

Governor Schwarzenegger has fulfilled his promise to “uphold the court ruling” by authorizing changes to the marriage certificats, replacing “husband” and “wife” with “partner A” and “partner B” wich is ironic considering that he vetoed a previous attempt by the legislature in 2005 to eliminate gender requirements for marriage which he argued required the assent of the electorate. Which is does people. He has also authorized Justices of the Peace and Town Clerks to solemnize and perform same sex marriage ceremonies which began on June 15th.

But the main question is whether or not Goernor Schwarzenegger possesses the constituional authority to do so.

The Governor, according to Article 5, Section 1 of the California Constitution is solely responsible for seeing that “the law is faithfully executed.”

And since all law making powers solely reside with the sovereign people of the state of California and their elected representatives, the governor is bound to only enforce the laws and statutes which have been enshrined into law via the people (in the case of a initiative statute or constitutional amendment) or their elected representatives, including Prop 22, which has not changed.

According to the California Constitution, only the voters possess the enumerated authority to amend or repeal the marriage statute limiting marriage to one man and one woman (Prop 22). As Judge Baxter wrote in his dissent:

Under article II, section 10, subdivision (c), that body 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.

Nemo dat quod non habet, (You cannot give what you do not have.”) In other words, the California Supreme Court cannot give to the Legislature, what neither it, nor the legislature, has: the power to overturn the people’s initiative legislation. No branch of government, even the branch that claims to be the final arbiter of a Constitution can gain legal authority which it does not possess. To claim then the “the court legalized same sex marriage” by “striking down” the people’s initiative statute limiting marriage to one man and one woman has absolutely no constitutional basis.

Governor Schwarzenegger has violated his sworn oath to uphold the California Constitution to only enforce the current laws and statutes of the state of California by illegally authorizing changes to, and issuance of, marriage certificates to same sex couples.

Like former Massachusetts Governor Romney before him, Governor Schwarzenegger has falsely asserted that the court’s opinion, containing no valid or enforceable court order, “legalized same sex marriage” and that it is his obligation to enforce the “court’s decision.” Romney illegally authorized the Department of Public Health to change the marriage certificates from “husband” and “wife” to “partner A” and “partner B” and ordered Town Clerks and Justices of the Peace to perform and solemnize same sex “marriages,” or tender their resignation (which one did), without an accompanying statute approved by the legislature.

Schwarzenegger’s tyrannical actions are straight out of the Romney playbook.

It is no surprise that the vast majority of the leading conservative “pro-family” organizations, lawyers, and radio-pundits have been silent about Schwarzenegger’s illegal actions since virtually every one of them from Focus on the Family to Ann Coulter to Rush Limbaugh totally suppressed the truth about Mitt Romney’s virtually identical illegal actions.

Romney, not the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, was originally solely responsible for the illegal issuance of marriage licenses to same sex couples in 2004. The claim that the “activist” Goodridge Court “legalized gay marriage” is a total lie. The court didn’t even pretend its declaratory opinion on the one individual case before it, could in any way influence the current marriage statute:

“Here, no one argues that striking down the marriage laws is an appropriate form of relief.”

In fact, the court admitted that under the marriage statute, Chapter 207 of the Massachusetts General Laws, homosexual marriage is illegal:

“We conclude, as did the judge, that M.G.L. c. 207 may not be construed to permit same-sex couples to marry.”

In California, while the court has claimed that the designation of marriage as a “union between one man and one woman” must be stricken from the statute, it is crucial to reiterate that only the sovereign people of California have the constitutional authority to amend or revoke an initiative statute such as Prop 22.

Since courts lack the authority to enforce their own opinions and cannot make law, they can only be considered “activist” when the executive branch enforces their opinion as if it were the “new law.” While a bare majority of four members of the court, no doubt issued an illegal opinion and should be impeached for doing so, Governor Schwarzenegger alone authorized the issuance of the illegally altered marriage certificates. Executive tyranny, not “judicial activism,” is what occurred in California (and Massachusetts).

The bottom line is this: Same-sex “marriage” is not legal anywhere in the United States of America from Massachusetts to California. Now if only somebody would explain this basic legal concept to our superstar “conservative” leaders, lawyers, and radio-pundits who incessantly swear that it is.

Now my question here is……..why are we not following the constitution anymore? It is the founding document of our country. The fabric that this country was built on. The thing that makes this country strong. So why are we forsaking it? For the weakening of America? Yes I think so. We the people, have got to take this country back before we do not have a country anymore.

I have friends who have been threatened for telling the truth, and I know that the threats will continue, because the politicians, of both parties are trying to take this country away from the people. And folks…….they are succeeding. In a major way. We are the only ones who can stop this trend. The silent majority cannot remain silent anymore.

Recently, the silent majority spoke up, and let the politicians in Washington D.C., know that we were onto what they were doing. When the politicians gave in to the demands of the people, the silent majority went silent again. That was the mistake. We cannot be silent anymore……keep up the pressure….and let the politicians know that we want our country back. NOW!

God Bless America
God Bless our Troops always…….
God Bless my Readers, my listeners on BTR, and my viewers on Youtube,

-Seane Anna-

*The article above was written by Gregg Jackson*

About Robert P. Garding

I am a Reagan Conservative, who is very alarmed at the Liberals who have just lost their majority over our government, but continue to act like it never happened. They have to be stopped. NOW or even sooner.
This entry was posted in Conservative Talk Blog host. Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to Same-Sex “Marriage” Illegal in All Fifty States…..

  1. Gregg Jackson says:

    Thanks for posting my article Would be nice if you provided some attribution naming me as the author and a link to the article. Unless you did and I mised it…

  2. Gregg Jackson says:

    sorr. my proper e-mail is

  3. Hi Gregg,

    I posted a similar article on my own blog a while ago. It was mostly meant as a “shtick.” That is, I was trying to point out the massive overreach of the California Court. When I first read an excerpt of your article, I was sure you were wrong, but I posted a blerb on my blog saying what a genius you were just to get in a a couple of digs.

    This recent article includes more details, but I’m still not convinced. Isn’t all of this sort of Court-Governor-Bureaucracy collusion as old as the civil rights legislation in the Deep South?

    P.S — For those who say the sky hasn’t fallen since Gay Marriage in Massachusetts, did you see this on Drudge:

  4. Debbie says:

    The silent majority need to speak up on many issues, in my opinion. I’m hoping this will be the year.

    Thank you for your kind words at Right Truth, much appreciated. Don’t be a stranger, I love meeting kindred spirits.

  5. Angel says:

    I still cant believe this is happening my friend!

  6. Charlotte says:

    There will always be people against equality. Marriage is a basic civil right that should be attainable by all Americans if they choose. For those who are uncomfortable with gay marriage check out our short produced to educate & defuse the controversy. It has a way of opening closed minds & provides some sanity on the issue:

  7. Aaron says:

    Charlotte said, “Marriage is a basic civil right that should be attainable by all Americans if they choose.” I couldn’t agree more. BUT marriage is between A MAN AND A WOMAN. There is no such thing as a ‘gay’ marriage, unless of course you mean ‘happy’.

  8. Seane-Anna says:

    What an eye opening article! And a scary one, too! And Robert, the Constitution will continue to be assaulted, twisted, or just ignored as long as that’s the only way the libtards can get their way.

    And Charlotte, if you really believe marriage is a civil right do you support the legalization of polygamy? Or do you believe the definition of marriage should be changed only when it benefits YOUR group? Frankly, I’m fed up with the hypocrisy of gays who scream for the legalization of THEIR lifestyle while opposing the legalization of the non-traditional lifestyle of some straight people. Sounds pretty self-serving if you ask me.

  9. Jinno says:

    I still feel rather adamantly that the tax benefits and rights alotted to those who are married, should also be available to those who have a partner of the same sex. The term “marriage” however, has too many religious ties that cause the whole ruckus that this has generated.

    Which is why I’d much rather rid the title of marriage from the system and simply have legal unions of two citizens. Same rights and privileges to whomever obtains one. That way if you want your union to be called a marriage, perform the service at your place of worship. To go about this would require amendments to state constitutions that ban it, and/or repeals of laws without constitutional bans. Due to the separation of State rights as delegated by the Federal constitution, the true enforcement of such a legal change would require each state to individually enact their laws and whatnot, which is what really steamrolls this whole thing.

    The term marriage has been one the biggest issue in this whole situation primarily because many see it as the true solidification of love. By denying them a marriage, it seems to deligitimize their love.

    But love is not something legally enforceable. And therein lies the big dispute. Other things though, have caused a devaluation of their rights as couples. Gay couples in some states have been denied the ability to adopt children. They’ve been denied the ability to see a loved one in a hospital, because of their lack of a marriage. The ability to file taxes jointly, to share assets, and other things indicative of a legal couple have been denied.

    Why? Because they don’t fit the norm. They could have the same morals, for the most part, as you, but would be denied those privileges because they aren’t man and woman. That’s what I don’t understand. Why is that an issue?

    This isn’t a matter of them being an affront to your rights, this isn’t a matter of infringement, or of any offense. It harms no one. And to implement it legally would be to make a direct clone of the current marriage statuses.

    Marriage in the legal sense provides a way of distributing property in separations, providing custody of children or pets, the ability to be a designated family member in the event of a tragedy, among other things. It’s limited to two people for lack of complication. If polygamy were included you would have to determine legally which things belonged to the second wife/husband and what belonged to the divorcing spouse. It’s a 3 or more way distribution, as opposed to two way. It is kept this way for simplicity and efficiency’s sake, not because it’s meant to endorse a lifestyle.

    So if we were to make it so that the legal union that is marriage were able to apply to man and man as well as woman and woman relationships, and all had the same rights and priviliges granted, would it be essential to call it something else, or simply continue referring to it as Marriage?

    The religious argument is against allowing marriage among Gay’s, because marriage is a religious sanctity. But legally it is a means to manage ownership and custody. It’s not simply a symbol of love among the Lord. But if we cease referring to it as Marriage, it’s no longer a matter of semantics, it’s a singular legal distribution of everything that marriage currently encompasses.

    With this I see no legitimate arguments. If I’m wrong, and this is absolutely appalling, give me logical reasons to why, please. No slippery slope arguments like last time.

  10. Seane-Anna says:

    Jinno! Glad to see you back! And I must say that you’ve certainly matured in your ability to argue for your point of view. I’m proud of you even though I think you couldn’t be more wrong. To keep this rather short I’ll only say this.

    Your argument that polygamy shouldn’t be allowed because it would be too complicated is weak as water. The idea that the arguments used to support gay marriage are valid ONLY for gay marriag and not every other non-traditional union is totally arbitrary and illogical.

    By what authority can liberals who support gay marriage insist that marriage should be limited to only two people? Every authority in our society–tradition, religion, Western culture–that defines marriage as monogamous is the same authority that liberals have been TEARING DOWN in their fervent fight to legitimize homosexuality. How then can they invoke those authorities to support restricting marriage only to couples? Answer: THEY CAN’T.

    Jinno, you and your liberal friends are going to have to admit that if you redefine marriage for gays you have to redefine it for every other fringe group. Legalizing gay marriage WILL open up a legal, sexual, and social Pandora’s box, and that may be just what you want.

  11. Jinno says:

    Look, I personally have no qualms to polygamy. I’ve no moral or logical reason to object to people having multiple partners, and allowing for more than 3 people in a union. In terms of genetic dispersal, it’s great for evolutionary purposes, but that’s not the law. Any legal binding of a new partner to an existing union would have to bind them to all prexisting members of that union. Upon continued addition of members the legal portion of the extended union becomes much more convoluted.

    Is that a valid argument against allowing multiple partners in a relationship, yes and no. Yes for those who see a need to remove the MANY inefficiencies we have in our system, but no for those who are looking for true lifestyle freedom in this country.

    It is a slippery slope to say that it is absolutely inevitable that fringe groups would come out to demand their stance. It could happen, indeed. But it’s not absolutely 100% going to happen. (Not to mention a number of Fundamentalist Mormon groups are pushing for legalization of polygamy, and a few sparse requests for the legalization of bestiality as it is.)

    One single note on bestiality before moving on: It is absurd to say that an animal incapable of speaking in human tongues, writing, or truly capable of following our normal legal procedures could in anyway be considered for a legal right to be united with a human. If you cannot sign papers, if you cannot in anyway communicate a legitimate desire to participate in a union, then it should not be able to count legally. A similar argument can be made for those who would want to marry minors. If they are not legally recognized as an adult, then they should not legally be able to sign off on a union.

    It would require extremely little adaptation to our current uniting legal practices. The simplicity of property distribution is quite likable, and leads to a higher economic efficiency. These are sound arguments for implementation of a variation of current legal practices for two members of the same-sex, which I argued for because of the context of the article, which stressed the illegality of same-sex unions. This is the first step in truly allowing for human lifestyle acceptance, and as stated above would still require amendments and law changes in all 50 states. It ends a current crisis, and leaves an open door for expansion later.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s