Friday, May 16, 2008

Still Illegal Coast to Coast

Although there were celebrations amongst the homosexual community at San Francisco City Hall, and here in Massachusetts, the reality of it all is that same-sex "marriages" are NOT legal in one state of this union, not one.

The California Supreme Court ruled this past Thursday that same-sex "marriages" are to be ALLOWED in the state, but did not rule they were legal in the state, as creating law is not the role of the court system. The people will decide the fate of marriage at the ballot box this upcoming November.
Read full California Supreme Court decision HERE.
As reported in the New York Times:
"The ban on same-sex marriage was based on a law enacted in 1977 and a statewide initiative approved by the voters in 2000, both defining marriage as limited to unions between a man and a woman."
In California, it is Gov. Schwarzenegger's constitutionally sworn duty to ignore the CA Supreme Court's recent opinion and make clear to the citizens of California that same-sex "marriages" are not "legal" until and unless the voters either amend the constitution or pass a law via our elected officials to amend the current marriage statutes to accommodate said same-sex "marriages".
In Massachusetts former Gov. Mitt Romney illegally issued same-sex "marriage" licenses without an accompanying statute claiming the "court legalized same-sex marriages" and that he was just "following a court order."
The Goodridge court in Massachusetts never claimed they were creating a new marriage law. In fact they said so in their opinion:
"We conclude, as did the judge, that M.G.L. c. 207 may not be construed to permit same-sex couples to marry."
In a joint letter to Governor Mitt Romney from pro-family leaders many asked the governor to immediately order all "marriage" licenses illegal.
Read joint letter HERE.
It was not an "activist" or "rogue" court that instituted same-sex "marriages" in Massachusetts even though the judges should have been impeached for even hearing the case because they lacked subject matter according to Article 5 of the MA Constitution. It was Mitt Romney and Mitt Romney ONLY who illegally installed same-sex "marriages" in Massachusetts (or at least the perception that "gay marriage" is "legal") which has led to all sorts of violations of parent's rights (David Parker), religious liberty, and rampant homosexual indoctrination starting in kindergarten. This is a VITAL distinction! Romney was/is the Founding Father of same-sex "marriage" in the United States of America!
Romney had the obligation to ignore the Goodridge decision at the very least and then to call for impeaching the rogue judges as he was advised to do by numerous constitutional scholars (which he chose not to do).
Kris Mineau, executive director of the conservative group the Massachusetts Family Institute, call(ed) the decision (in California) “an attack on democracy.”
Read full story with Kris Mineau's comments HERE in the Boston Herald.
Read full story of California decision in Bay Windows.
Read full story of California illegally overturning the gay "marriage" ban HERE.
O.K., so let me get this straight. Californians voted in 2000 to ban same-sex "marriages" from becoming legal. The California Supreme Court ruled this past Thursday that the ban on gay "marriage" is unconstitutional. The people voted and the courts interpreted marriage as a constitutional civil right for all.
As I have said time and time again on my blog, the courts APPLY the law, they do not CREATE the law. Civil rights come from the democratic process, not lawsuits and court decisions. The people or their elected representatives vote to give particular claims the legal status of civil rights. That's called the "consent of the governed".
In Massachusetts same-sex "marriage" was NEVER approved by the people at the ballot box and was rejected by the people's elected representatives in the state legislature and ignored by our former governor. In both California and Massachusetts those who want same-sex "marriage" to be treated as a civil right and its opponents to be punished as bigots lack democracy's backing. The people of both states never voted to make same-sex "marriage" a civil right. Period!
The issue is not about whether civil rights should be put to a vote, but about voting whether to elevate same-sex "marriage" to the level of a civil right in the first place. Deciding civil rights is the people's civil right not the courts.
With the state of California already with 1 million signatures to put the definition of marriage on the ballot in November, it is a no brainer that California will become the 27th
state in the union to constitutionally ban same-sex "marriages". The homosexual community will soon come to find that they can not depend on activist judges and lazy governors to legalize their sexual proclivities because that is UNCONSTITUTIONAL in America. In a democracy the legislative branch that represents the people decide the laws and not those in black robes. Although radical homosexuals think they have won a victory with the California and Massachusetts decision, they will soon come to grips that their victory will be short lived.
Let The People Vote!!

31 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

I’m not sure I agree with you on this but even if it is not a “legal” marriage so what? If I pleasure my wife orally is someone going to complain because that’s against the law where I live?

Ken Weaver

2:37 PM, May 17, 2008  
Blogger SCIA said...

Same-sex "marriage" and your choses of how you are to please your wife sexually in a certain way is apples and oranges.

I see you only want to be a smart-alik and not engage in civil discourse on this topic. Does not surprise me, because since you can not refute anything I have posted you need to stoop to making jokes.

6:55 PM, May 17, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

“Same-sex "marriage" and your choses of how you are to please your wife sexually in a certain way is apples and oranges.”

However both are against the law (according to you) that’s the point I was bringing up.

“I see you only want to be a smart-alik and not engage in civil discourse on this topic.”

I brought up something simple and easy to understand that way it’s an easy analogy. If you don’t see it that way I feel bad.

“… because since you can not refute anything I have posted you need to stoop to making jokes.”

Since when have I ever backed down? It is generally you who has stopped commenting on some of your threads because apparently I ask the tough questions.

“We’re Here, We’re Queer, We're Intolerant of Opposing Viewpoints"!

You never responded to my last comments.

Day of Glorifying Homosexuality & Special Interest Groups

You didn’t respond there either.

Normalizing Transgenderism for Children

We agreed on this one.

Don't Silence the Truth

You ignored my last 2 comments here.

"Why Would Someone Do This?"

Your last post thanked me for answering.

Normalizing Sexual Proclivities

I posted last.

A Couple Days Late and a Few Facts Short

I posted next to last and the last one agreed with me.

Transgender Rights and Gay "Marriage" Bills Drown Under Pressure

You never responded to my comments.

Legalizing A Dangerous Psychiatric Disorder

Never responded to my comments there either.

Kern's Comments Create Controversy

I was the last one to post there.

I’m sure you get busy and forget to respond or you figure it’s a dead issue anyway and move on, but you don’t get to accuse me of not responding to you! That’s not true and you know it.

Ken Weaver

8:15 PM, May 17, 2008  
Blogger SCIA said...

Ken,

O.K. Mr. Weaver the men in the white coats are going to pick you up in just a few moments. Settle down.

I will look at all of those comments I never answered and will justify my decision to either answer them or leave them alone because your comments just proved how crazy your secular thought process really is and I did not want to disturb the truth.

9:07 PM, May 17, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

“O.K. Mr. Weaver the men in the white coats are going to pick you up in just a few moments. Settle down.”

Now who’s making jokes? HAha.

“…your comments just proved how crazy your secular thought process really is and I did not want to disturb the truth.”

My thought process is crazy but you believe in an invisible man? Yes, Yes I see it now… the invisible man is materializing before my eyes!! He says…”gobbledygook!”

Ken Weaver

11:23 PM, May 17, 2008  
Blogger Mary said...

I so glad that people are starting to let the facts of the law be known. If we want a free country we must obey the law, not the men in black who are trying very hard to rule as kings.

1:35 PM, May 18, 2008  
Blogger Ambivorous said...

Ah, once again, they resort to the "judicial activists" argument, without understanding what the actual rulings were in the Goodridge or California cases.

The judges in Massachusetts did not create any laws; they simply ruled that the laws that were on the books were violative of the Massachusetts and United States Constitutions. They also threw it back to the General Court to resolve, which if failed to do.

I hate to break the news to you, sweetie pie, but homosexual marriage is most certainly "legal" here in Massachusetts, and you closing your eyes, plugging your ears, and repeating "I don't believe, I don't believe" over and over ain't gonna change that.

5:19 PM, May 18, 2008  
Blogger KatieKat said...

"Civil rights come from the democratic process, not lawsuits and court decisions."
I'm going to have to call you on this. While it is possible that maybe SOME civil rights came from the democratic process (which I seriously doubt, but I'll give you the benefit), MOST civil rights cases in this country were decided by 'lawsuits and court decisions'. For example, Brown vs. Board of Education, Loving vs. Virginia, Plessy vs. Ferguson, etc.

8:30 AM, May 19, 2008  
Blogger SCIA said...

Ambivorous,

If Same-Sex "marriages", SS"M", are "legal" in MA, why then did the state legislature try and pass a law to legalize ss"m" last month?

SS"M" is not legal in MA. ALL of the facts point to this.

Sorry sweatie-pie.

6:18 PM, May 20, 2008  
Blogger SCIA said...

Ken,

I am still pissing my pants about …”gobbledygook!”

Good show!!

6:18 PM, May 20, 2008  
Blogger SCIA said...

Katie,

Before posting any comments I would strongly suggest that you look into the court cases and you will realize that they ALL have NOTHING to do with civil rights.

Sorry.

6:20 PM, May 20, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I read the Goodridge decision and part of the CA decision and they have everything to do with civil rights. The terms "civil right" and "fundamental right" are specifically mentioned in the cases. No need to argue though, Scia. I'm confident that even if I physically showed you this to prove it, you would close your eyes and block your ears and still say it's not there. And Katie is right that civil rights have been historically recognized by the courts, not voters--not always, but this has definitely been the case at significant points in history.

-Gary

Oh and the subject matter of your last post was funny. So, let me get this right--people should be more tolerant of people's opinion which express intolerance? That makes tons of sense.

Anybody watch American Idol? I think David Archuleta will win, but they'll both have great careers.

6:43 PM, May 20, 2008  
Blogger SCIA said...

Anonymous,

You said:

"I read the Goodridge decision and part of the CA decision and they have everything to do with civil rights."

The judicial system does not make law nor do they determine what is considered a civil right. End of story.

"...civil rights have been historically recognized by the courts, not voters--not always, but this has definitely been the case at significant points in history."

You and Katie are correct on this point. My fault for being intellectually lazy with my comments on this issue.


You said:

"Oh and the subject matter of your last post was funny."

What are you talking about here?

2:54 PM, May 21, 2008  
Blogger KatieKat said...

Scia,
You said:
"Before posting any comments I would strongly suggest that you look into the court cases and you will realize that they ALL have NOTHING to do with civil rights."
I really hope you're not referring to the court cases that I cited in my last comment, because all three of those decided civil rights. De-segreagation in schools = Civil Rights. Being able to marry who you love regardless of race = Civil Rights. If, however, you are referring to the MA marriage decision, and the CA marriage decision, you are, once again, wrong. Marriage is a civil right. Since no marriage is legal until it is performed civilly (i.e., going to apply for your marriage license at City Hall), that makes it a civil matter, and, as far as most compassionate people are concerned, a RIGHT. Civil + Right = Civil Right. NOW do you understand?

10:53 AM, May 22, 2008  
Blogger SCIA said...

Katie,

You need to understand something.

In Loving v. Virginia, which was presented to the Supreme Court of Minnesota in 1971, a decision was handed down that ruled that race and homosexuality are NOT similar. Based on Loving v. Virginia, the 1967 U.S. Supreme Court case striking down state bans on interracial marriage, the Minnesota court said:

"Loving does indicate that not all state restrictions upon the right to marry are beyond reach of the Fourteenth Amendment. But in commonsense and in a constitutional sense, there is a clear distinction between a marital restriction based merely on race and one based on the fundamental difference in sex. (Baker v. Nelson, Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1971).

The case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which refused to hear it, citing "appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question". The highest court in our land apparently did not view the race-homosexuality comparison as a serious constitutional question.

You concluded with:

"Marriage is a civil right."

Please cite sources that prove this Katie.

2:17 PM, May 22, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The judicial branch does not technically make law, but by interpreting current law, their rulings (obviously) change how law is applied. A court's ruling can "expand" the law. This isn't really something to debate since it's happened over and over again. Also, based on some of your conclusions, I'm guessing that you're not a law professor.

And marriage has been termed a "civil right" (or "fundamental" right) for quite a while. While the court cases obviously don't reference marriage for gays and lesbians, the decisions do refer to the right to marry as a civil right. So, there's your answer. This isn't debatable. It's just historical fact.

Skinner v. Oklahoma (1942) The U.S. Supreme Court first referred to the right to marry as “one of the basic civil rights.”

Perez v. Sharp (1948) In this case, the California Supreme Court was the first in the 20th century to declare that its state law prohibiting marriage between interracial couples was unconstitutional. The Court said: “Marriage is thus something more than a civil contract subject to regulation by the state; it is a fundamental right of free men.”

Loving v. Virginia (1967) The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that laws prohibiting marriage between interracial couples were unconstitutional. The Court said: “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”

I found your previous posting "funny" as in ironic. I explained why right after I said that.

-Gary

6:07 PM, May 22, 2008  
Blogger SCIA said...

Gary,

You said:

"The judicial branch does not technically make law, but by interpreting current law, their rulings (obviously) change how law is applied. A court's ruling can "expand" the law..."

You are completely and utterly 100%incorrect. The judiciary merely interprets the law and issues opinions. They have absolutely ZERO law making or enforcement powers.

Let me ask you Gary, where in the U.S. or MA Constitution the judiciary has law making powers?

Loving v. Virginia merely issued an OPINION that barring interracial marriage was unconstitutional. It was still up to the PEOPLE of the individual states, as you are seeing happening today, to decide their own definition of marriage and the decision didn't change the FACT that marriage is still between one man and one woman. That is why the U.S. Supreme Court threw out the case and stated:

"Loving does indicate that not all state restrictions upon the right to marry are beyond reach of the Fourteenth Amendment. But in commonsense and in a constitutional sense, there is a clear distinction between a marital restriction based merely on race and one based on the fundamental difference in sex. (Baker v. Nelson, Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1971).

The looney-left always point to the Loving OPINION and claim barring homosexual "marriage" is similar to barring inter-racial marriage which it is not by any way, shape or form.

You go on to 100% incorrectly say:

"...And marriage has been termed a "civil right" (or "fundamental" right) for quite a while..."

Marriage is a legal institution and NOT a civil right. Here is why:

http://www.massnews.com/2004_editions/03_march/030204_is_marriage_a_civil_right.htm

Civil rights are unalienable "God given rights" enumerated in our founding documents. Gary, you are fundamentally confused about what a civil right is, so I hope my facts help release you from your confusion on the matter.

Sincerely,
Scia and staff

12:26 PM, May 23, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

“Marriage is a legal institution and NOT a civil right. Here is why:”

That link sent me to a google site stating that this page no longer exists.

“Civil rights are unalienable "God given rights" enumerated in our founding documents.”

True, but those are not the only rights we have. We have many other rights that are not stated explicitly in the Constitution; should we be willing to give them up for the sake of marriage.

Ken Weaver

7:56 PM, May 23, 2008  
Blogger John Hosty-Grinnell said...

"If Same-Sex "marriages", SS"M", are "legal" in MA, why then did the state legislature try and pass a law to legalize ss"m" last month?"

Because people like you won't understand what equality is until it is written in a form they can't deny.

Most people in Massachusetts see GLBT equality as such a non-issue they see no point in needing to clarify marriage equality with a law of it's own.

Scia, your last post is signed Scia and staff, but have you noticed you have zero support for your opinions on your own blog? Where exactly is your staff that they can't be here talking your points for you? Why would you need a staff to run a websight that gets such little attention?

11:12 PM, May 23, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I did not say that the judicial branch has law-making powers. I specifically said that they interpret the current law which can change HOW the law is applied after a particular court ruling.

Yes, Loving v. Virginia issued a ruling that the states then had to enforce. The court isn’t enforcing the law technically, but there is obviously a cause and effect relationship there. This really isn’t that complicated. When a court makes a ruling that interprets the law, the legislative and executive branch are required to enforce that law. Sometimes this is done reluctantly (such as with the Brown v. Board of Education ruling) but they still have to do it.

I also specifically said that the court cases that I cited did not refer to same-sex marriage, so I’m not sure why you felt that you had to emphasize something that I already acknowledged (when you said, “the decision didn’t change the FACT that marriage is still between one man and one woman.”)

And while you may be quoting an actual court case in 1971, this logic is now being challenged by more current cases (Goodridge and the recent CA decision). Goodridge, a more current court case, specifically draws comparisons between that case and Loving v. Virginia. You have every right to your opinion that there isn’t a connection between the barring of interracial marriage and same-sex marriage. But this is still just YOUR OPINION. And I and many others disagree with you. So, this is not fact--it is just YOUR OPINION, even though you wish it were fact. Court cases will often trump one another. An example of this is when Brown trumped the Plessy v. Ferguson (“separate is equal”) ruling.

And I shoud’ve said that the RIGHT TO marry is a civil right. I would have thought that you would have been able to extrapolate what I meant there, but I guess not. So, again the court cases that I referred to clearly state that the right to marry is a fundamental and civil right. Again, this isn’t my personal opinion, it is just historical fact. Are you suggesting that my quoting of the cases is inaccurate, because I think it’s pretty clear what’s is being said there. Well, it’s pretty clear to most people.

Here’s a definition of civil rights that I even checked with a lawyer who deals in constitutional law. I’m willing to bet that your definition is one that you just created. Just a guess:

civil rights: the rights belonging to an individual by virtue of citizenship, especially the fundamental freedoms and privileges guaranteed by the 13th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and by subsequent acts of Congress, including civil liberties, due process, equal protection of the laws, and freedom from discrimination.

Also, I would never think of anything that is MassResistance puts out as reliable, objective, or in the least bit accurate. Quoting them unfortunately shows that you’re not really concerned with true accuracy.

-Gary

5:51 PM, May 24, 2008  
Blogger S.A. said...

"Gary" wrote:
Also, I would never think of anything that is MassResistance puts out as reliable, objective, or in the least bit accurate. Quoting them unfortunately shows that you’re not really concerned with true accuracy. -Gary 5:51 PM, May 24, 2008

Way to go, "Gary!" Attack the people rather than their arguments and statements of verifiable fact. You are a slanderous coward with no interest in the truth or the rule of law. I have personally spoken at length with about two dozen law professors, professors of jurisprudence and lawyers about the arguments MassResistance published. In fact they got most of those arguments from me and those legal experts.

Your malicious ad hominem method and brute obscurantism are typical of the 21st Century pseudo-sophisticated barbarism that is destroying civilization.

John Haskins

9:49 AM, May 27, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

John,

I questioned Scia's referencing MassResistance because they are hardly an unbiased source. It's not like quoting a historical document or something like that.

And (not that I needed more convincing) but MassResistance has also been classified as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. On their website, they clarify: "Anti-gay groups are organizations that go beyond mere disagreement with homosexuality by subjecting gays and lesbians to campaigns of personal vilification.

So, while there may be SOME details and facts that they have correct, MassResistance hardly provides an objective viewpoint. And being classified as a hate group certainly implies that their viewpoint is too extreme. So, I questioned quoting any information from that group."

And I would hardly say that my questioning Scia's citing of MassResistance was "malicious" and that it makes me a "slanderous coward." That reaction seems a bit extreme for what I said. If you had just asked why I felt that MassResistance wasn't a reliable or accurate source, I would've plainly answered you.

And honestly, I could've been much more negative about MassResistance than I was. My guess is that you took this personally since (according to you) you have provided the info. Most people would not have necessarily processed this statement in the same way that you did. Obviously you don't think of MassResistance's viewpoint as too extreme, but, again, this would just be your opinion, and many others strongly disagree with that.

-Gary

3:10 PM, May 27, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Is this the same John Haskins that is the Associate Director of Parents' Rights Coalition?

Ken Weaver

7:41 PM, May 27, 2008  
Blogger SCIA said...

Sorry Ken,

My staff and I had the long Memorial weekend off. Pretty weird not checking the blog for awhile. I have a lot of comments to respond to.

I said:

“Marriage is a legal institution and NOT a civil right. Here is why:”

The link was cut off. Here it is in full:

http://www.massnews.com/2004_editions/03_march/030204_is_marriage_a_civil_right.htm

2:18 PM, May 28, 2008  
Blogger SCIA said...

John,

You said:

"Because people like you won't understand what equality is until it is written in a form they can't deny."

To me saying:

"If Same-Sex "marriages", SS"M", are "legal" in MA, why then did the state legislature try and pass a law to legalize ss"m" last month?"

My point here John is that if you, and many others, are claiming that SS"M"s are "legal" in MA why does the legislature have to put in on the books? Didn't the judicial system "legalize" SS"M"? Oh, that's right. The Judicial System can not MAKE law. Whoops!!

2:24 PM, May 28, 2008  
Blogger SCIA said...

Gary,

You previously said:

"A court's ruling can "expand" the law."

No, it can not.

Again, the judiciary merely interprets the law and issues opinions. They have absolutely ZERO law making or enforcement powers.

Ask your lawyer friend about this and maybe you will understand better.

You said:

"So, again the court cases that I referred to clearly state that the right to marry is a fundamental and civil right. Again, this isn’t my personal opinion,.."

No, it is not your personal opinion, it is the opinion of the courts. An O.P.I.N.I.O.N, not a ruling that is automatically translated into law without Legislative approval.

2:33 PM, May 28, 2008  
Blogger John Hosty-Grinnell said...

My marriage is fully legally recognized as equal to yours SCIA, provided you are married too. In no way will the state find a difference or treat us differently. This is has it has been for 4 years now, and there will be no reversal of that fact. This is a closed issue.

2:39 PM, May 28, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Scia,

It's probably not going to be productive to continue this discussion as logic and big-picture thinking doesn't seem to come into play here, so this is my last post on this subject.

I used a variety of words and "expand" was just one of them. It's not worthwhile to make this a game of nit-picky semantics. I also said "that they interpret the current law which can change HOW the law is applied after a particular court ruling." Is this also inaccurate (this is a rhetorical question)?

When people bring cases to a court they are obviously looking for a ruling/decision from the court. And while the court doesn't technically enforce the law, obviously (except in this blog) the court decision can affect the application of a law going forward. Otherwise the ruling is meaningless. A court's ruling, decision, whatever you want to call it, can have a significant effect on society. When Loving ruled that interracial marriage bans were unconstitutional that caused the nullification of all state interracial marriage bans. The states did not have a choice whether or not to follow it. They could choose to leave the interracial marriage ban on the state law books, but it would now be invalid.

And lawyers, judges, etc base subsequent rulings on the decisions/rulings/whatever that are contained in previous court cases ("precedent"). Goodridge quoted earlier court cases' use of referring to the right to marry as a civil right and this factored into their larger decision. So, obviously the earlier rulings matter to current law. All you would have to do is watch legal dramas on TV to be aware of this.

-Gary

7:26 PM, May 28, 2008  
Blogger SCIA said...

Gary,

You said:

"So, obviously the earlier rulings matter to current law. All you would have to do is watch legal dramas on TV to be aware of this."

If T.V. court decisions is where you are getting your information from, then yes, this should be your last time that you visit my blog.

Your incorrect on your translation regarding the duties of the judicial branch. It is that simple.

Goodnight and goodluck!!

6:19 AM, May 29, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Scia,

I knew it. I finished that post and realized that Scia would take my TV legal drama comment literally. Of course I am not getting my info from TV. I was making the comment that I felt that the info I was stating was understood by the general public (because it's even referenced on TV). Again, I thought it was obvious that I was making a comment not to be taken literally, but I guess not.

And I also feel that you are incorrect in your assessment of the judicial duties. Since I've given historical examples (such as the Loving case), it's confusing that it's still not clear to you how the judicial branch has affected the application of the law. Affecting HOW current law is applied (based on a constitution, for example) is different than actually creating new law. BOTH have an effect on society. I thought that this is obvious, but apparently not. I'm now finished.

-Gary

8:21 AM, May 29, 2008  
Blogger John Hosty-Grinnell said...

Gary, Scia doesn't answer questions he finds too difficult, then he presses people why they haven't answered all his questions. If that hypocritical?

Scia, how many people does it take to run a failing website? ;)

You do realize that every views this as a lie, right?

11:40 AM, May 29, 2008  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Powered by Blogger

Sign my Guestbook from Bravenet.com Get your Free Guestbook from Bravenet.com