Jan 282010
 

Nowhere in the MSM did you see coverage of homosexual activists saying in court, “if we can’t marry, then no one should.”

Nowhere in the MSM did you see coverage of the No on 8 lawyers calling voting Yes On 8 a hate crime.

Nowhere in the MSM did you see coverage of how the judge refused to issue  a reciprocating order compelling No on 8 to turn over their campaign documents the way Yes on 8 had to.

Nowhere in the MSM did you see anything close to a recitation of the legal facts – the most absurd of which is the claims that Homosexuals are a powerless minority. Hmmm, Harvey Milk Day? Our Assembly Speaker?

Again – the Prop 8 trial shows us why the American Media Establishment is a direct threat to our Republic and should be treated as propaganda and regulated under campaign finance law.

Quoting Andy Pugno: “But no matter how loud the pleas for sympathy become, there is simply no legal basis for the fantastical, unsupportable claim that the homosexual community in California is “politically powerless.” Does Equality California, California’s biggest gay lobby organization, think of itself as powerless? Does the Human Rights Campaign, which featured President Obama at their latest dinner, believe they are politically powerless? Are we to believe that these groups are politically powerless despite their ability to raise $43 million to oppose Prop 8, and to attract the support of the entire political establishment, Hollywood and the media? Not with a straight face we can’t.”

The bottom line – only Marriages produce Children. The fact that the voters had to be called on to remind the California Supreme Court of that fact is insane. The fact that the homosexual lobby has run to a liberal judge to usurp the will of 7 million voters and the above comments prove their agenda in their mind justifies tyranny, persecution and whatever other means in order to be advanced.

The Bottom line? – quoting Andy Pugno Again: “What may be lost in all the sensationalism of the past two and a half weeks of trial is that the burden of proof to invalidate Prop 8 lies squarely with the plaintiffs. They cannot win unless they prove that the voters were “irrational” when they chose to preserve the traditional definition of marriage in our state. Contrary to their public relations claims, the outcome of this case does not depend on whether the Prop 8 sponsors can prove that homosexual marriage will harm traditional marriage. The controlling legal issue is not whether homosexual marriage is good or bad, but rather whether the people have the right to decide what is best.  The plaintiffs simply did not carry that burden.

Meanwhile, we have shown that limiting marriage to its longstanding definition is rational because marriage benefits children, not just the adults. Whenever possible, it is best for a child to have both a mother and a father. And man-woman marriage is the only human relationship that can biologically serve that distinctive purpose.  A same-sex relationship can never offer a child both a mother and father. It’s that simple.

The plaintiffs put on a spectacular show-trial of irrelevant evidence, calling to the stand many “expert” witnesses to testify that allowing homosexual marriage would: help local governments raise more tax revenues, help gay and lesbian couples to accumulate greater wealth, and improve the self-esteem of homosexuals.  But those are political arguments for society to consider, not legal support for the claim that the US Constitution contains the right to homosexual marriage. The courtroom is simply not the proper forum for what is clearly a social, not a legal, appeal.

I predict that Judge Walker will legislate from his bench and cite the emotional arguments of the No on 8 side in his decision.

It wouldn’t surprise me to see my name on a list of bigots somewhere soon – remember, it’s all about tolerance, right? (forget what the voters think)

Jan 202010
 

Well – Judge Walker wormed around the 9th Circuit decision against forcing the release of internal campaign documents and guess what?

The Catholic and Mormon Church’s role was put on the stand. Worse – Religion was put on the stand.

Read this incredibly biased AP article about the trial and notice how they downplay the fact that the Speaker of the California Assembly is gay in an effort to lend their news organization as an assistant to the plantiffs. (no on 8 )

The concept that Gays are an oppressed minority is absurd. The article’s title – Professor says Gays are Politically Unpopular – basically says we need to overturn prop 8 with a court because 34 of 35 gay marriage initiatives have failed at the ballot box.

Thanks to Judge Walker – the No on 8 crowd will have a much easier time winning as they will know the strategy used by Yes on 8.

Most troubling is this excerpt from Andy Pugno summarizing today’s installment of absurdity:

Today, the legal challenge to Prop. 8 took an ugly turn as religion itself was put on trial. Plaintiffs’ witness Gary Segura, a Stanford University political science professor with expertise in the area of the political power of minorities including homosexuals, summed it up when he said “religion is the chief obstacle for gays’ and lesbians’ political progress.”

In trying to make the case that homosexuals are a vulnerable minority with no ability to achieve and secure success in the political system for their interests, Professor Segura blamed hostility, political opposition and even violence towards gays and lesbians on the teachings of major religious denominations. He further testified that there is no more powerful organization in the United States – save the government – than the church. Particular scrutiny was given to the official religious doctrines of the Catholic Church and Southern Baptists about marriage, family and sexual relationships. Therefore, according to his logic, gays and lesbians must be given special legal protection by the U.S. Constitution against religion itself.

So – Prop 8 hurts people’s feelings, overturn the will of the people… when that doesn’t work – smear the Church.

At least the professor is honest about it. (Unlike the AP)

Jan 172010
 

Curious isn’t it? Wonder why the media coverage of the Proposition 8 trial has been so scarce?

The only coverage was of some “psychologist” talking about how proposition 8 needs to be struck down ‘for the good of the children’. Funny. The Psychologist – while degreed hasn’t treated patients… in fact Dr. Lamb is pretty much an academic. (facts omitted from the AP wire/LA Times)

Funny – Children raised by two same-sex parents seem to perform just as well as parents raised in a heterosexual household.

In fact – two earlier witnesses, also celebrated by the media were exposed for their long histories of activism. This is significant as it would be like asking a pit boss to testify that gambling is not harmful.

The key part of the trial this week – actually the two key parts were:

1. Aside from badgering the Chinese pastor for words written in Chinese 5-10 years ago – an assault on the Church seems to not be forthcoming. It may yet come as their witnesses thus far are being embarrassed.

2. The defense (yes on 8 ) – quoted Obama’s own book where he wrote that it is possible to support traditional marriage without showing moral disapproval of homosexuals. The ‘expert’ witnesses had to concede that point.

In addition the defense has been repeatedly questioning and gaining witness to admissions that society has grown a lot more tolerant of homosexuals.

These are huge blows to the case…

Now of grave concern – Judge Vaughn Walker is showing in my opinion contempt for the 9th Circuit Court and the U.S Supreme Count in two ways:

1. He has figured out how to get around the 9th Circuit Court staying his order to force yes on 8 to turn over all sensitive campaign data about targeting and strategy. Thus far, the Yes on 8 team has responded by asking the same from No on 8. I expect that the judge will rule against Yes on 8 – continuing his pattern of using his bench to help the No side as much as he can.

2. He is still taping the proceedings even though the Supreme Court stayed his order. Even though the Yes on 8 lawyers said he’d be in contempt of the Supreme Court if the tapes got out – it would not surprise me to see them on Gawker or Qweerty some day.

I still can’t believe we are seeing this in America.


Prop 8 Fight Heads to Pro-Homosexual Federal Court and The Anti-Religious Agenda Comes Out

 Gay Marriage, No on 8, Proposition 8, Religious Freedom, Yes on 8  Comments Off on Prop 8 Fight Heads to Pro-Homosexual Federal Court and The Anti-Religious Agenda Comes Out
Jan 082010
 

Proposition 8 passed 14 months ago – but the opponents are on an obsessive rampage to get a court to usurp the voters. After losing in California Courts, they have filed an Equal Protection attack in Federal Court.

The Judge, Vaughn Walker has ruled against the Yes on 8 crowd in almost every pre-trial motion, including ruling that the case will be televised. Judge Walker is doing the bidding of the No on 8 crowd as the televised proceedings could lead to harassment and persecution of the witnesses brought by the yes on 8 side.

But, the agenda of the No on 8 crowd has become clear – advance Homosexual rights and do so by exterminating religious freedom. In Canada, hate crimes laws are being used to bludgeon Churches and ministries in to silence and the Democrats in Congress have attached hate crimes legislation to defense appropriations bills.

The case hitting Walker’s Courtroom is based on proving that Homosexuals are a protected class and as a result, your choice of sex act is the equivalent of your race.

They seek to prove that Homosexuality is unchangable – and here’s the truly scary part – that people who voted yes on 8 tied their religious views to their moral views and their votes should be invalidated as a result.

The agenda finally comes out in the open – having worked on campaigns and seen up front what happens in practice, I have been convinced of a pure hatred of the Church by the core of the Homosexual movement.

Prop 8 is driven by religious animus they say. Need more info – a Pastor was forced to go to court to defend himself after a human rights panel in Canada lynched him. He won, but the fact he ended up there is scary enough.

When Prop 8 donors were harassed, the media was absent, and a new round is being ushered in. The defenders of Prop 8 are in court again – with a motion to overturn this deliberate ruling by Judge Walker.

The absurdity of the concept that the No on 8 people will bring to this court about Homosexuals being a persecuted minority has been borne out over the last 14 months. Activist Dan Savage said, “We’ll just wait for them to die” – referring to the overwhelming majority of seniors that voted yes on 8 and of course the threats and vandalism against the homes and businesses of Prop 8 donors.

The persecuted minority? Anyone heard of Barney Frank? The new speaker of the California Assembly is gay? Unlike Christian Legislators in California who get put in the worst capitol offices and are targets of ridicule – the Speaker sits in the largest office and is celebrated.

It seems apocalyptic. They have gone so far as to have gotten one judge to rule that the Yes on 8 campaign had to turn over internal communication and strategy… and in this federal case, they are going back there. This is Orwellian thought-police type of stuff and unprecedented in legal circles.

The Trial should last 4-6 weeks. Listen and look at what comes out of the trial – the group the screams the loudest for tolerance wants to exterminate free speech in the process.