Prop 8 comments

I found some comments made by a teacher that I thought I would share.  They are from this website:  http://www.the-signal.com/news/article/5287/

xoomac:
October 28, 2008 - 08:37 PM

The state law still remains intact. Same-sex marriage is still NOT legal, regardless of the May ruling.

That's what this is all about.

Ignoring Article III, Section 3.5 is wrong & shows blatant abuse of our CA Constitution & total disregard for the law on the books, Family Law Code section 308.5.

section 308.5 of the Family Law Code -- which was enacted by the voters themselves as an initiative (Proposition 22) in the 2000 election -- says that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

Article III, section 3.5 of the California Constitution says that an "administrative agency has no power to refuse to enforce a statute, on the basis of its being unconstitutional unless an appellate court has made a determination that such statute is unconstitutional."

In other words, the California Constitution itself says that when an agency thinks that a statute violates the Constitution, the agency should continue to obey the statute until appellate courts have resolved the matter. Section 3.5 thus sets up an orderly process to prevent each agency from going its own way and disregarding the will of the legislature in the name of constitutional conscience."

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/amar/200403............

Thus, the real important questions remain, Why is Article III, section 3.5 of our CA Constitution NOT being upheld? Why are standing statutes codified in CA Family Law NOT being enforced?

As a CA Public H.S. Health teacher I am outraged at the breach of fiduciary trust between CA Public School Teachers & their union by using UNION DUES to the tune of $1.2 MILLION DOLLARS to finance the FALLACIOUS TV ADS incorrectly stating "CA TEACHERS" are voting NO on Prop. 8, too. What a lie!

I am voting YES as are many of my fellow LAUSD teachers!

Prop. 8 is LEGALLY necessary because of the failure of both our CA COURTS & CONGRESS to respect us, the CA VOTERS (i.e. Prop. 22 or Family Law Code Section 308.5) & their abject failure as CA Govt. officials to respect our CA Constitution, specifically Article III, Section 3.5.

The CIVIL RIGHTS being ripped from the CA Constitution if Prop. 8 fails are "religious freedom" & "parents rights" to things like "parental notification" in light of the Massachusetts Father who was ARRESTED for simply insisting he be given his just due, "parental notification."

http://link.brightcove.com/services/play...

http://www.boston.com/news/local/article...

http://www.massresistance.org/docs/marri...

http://www.massresistance.org/docs/parke...

http://www.protectmarriage.com/video/vie...

DON'T buy the LIES of the "No on Prop. 8" Campaign!

Vote YES on Prop. 8!

xoomac:
November 01, 2008 - 10:39 AM

farfromhome (ffh) is guilty of more than a "fuzzy memory" here. My LEGAL contention remains VALID as there are "6" CA Courts of Appeal or "appellate courts" while only "1" CA Supreme Court, & Article III, Section 3.5 was put in place to keep ALL branches of our CA Govt., including the Supreme Court, in check when such mischief as this May's "Judicial Review" takes place & we in fact have had NO appellate court in CA prove Prop. 22 or Family Law Code 308.5 to be UNconstitutional!

As far as teaching gay marriage in public schools being "ridiculous" goes, allow me to set the record straight as a tenured teacher for LAUSD with over a decade of experience w/in the CA Public H.S. Classroom teaching the very subject that involves SEX ED, HEALTH ED.

FACT: CA ED CODE (see 51930-51939) was recently CHANGED/CORRUPTED by lesbian CA. Sen. Kuehl's bogus bill known as SB 777 & passed into law by Gov. Schwarzenegger 1/1/08.

FACT: The 2nd purpose of this newly revised CA ED CODE for HEALTH does mandate both "sexual orientation" & "marriage" be taught as part of OCSD!

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displa...

FACT: SB 777, AB 394, & AB14 are "reverse discrimination" against traditional family values.

"...public schools...have now become sexualized indoctrination centers."

"...children as young as five years old will be mentally molested in school classrooms."

"...every California school becomes a homosexual-bisexual-transsexual indoctrination center"

"SB777...bans anything in public schools that could be interpreted as negative toward homosexuality, bisexuality and other alternative lifestyle choices."

"SB 777 will result in reverse discrimination against students with religious and traditional family values,"

"AB394 promotes the same issues through state-funded publications, postings, curricula and handouts to students, parents and teachers."

"AB14...prohibits state funding for any program that does not support a range of alternative sexual practices, including state-funded social services run by churches."

FACT: "California Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O'Connell...has used his state position and taxpayer-funded stationery to praise a "gay" pride event used in the past to expose children to sexually explicit activities."

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/articl...

Supt. O'Connell is also in "NO on Prop. 8 Ads" distorting the TRUTH about what is/isn't taught. The same ad that LIES about teachers like me. I'm voting YES!

FACT: CTA has spent, according to CA Assemblyman Cameron Smyth, over $2 MILLION (many from UNION DUES) to prop up NO on Prop. 8!

Our CHILDREN are being set up for ongoing "mental molestation" and "anything goes" indoctrination by unscrupulous lawmakers who care more about protecting their "Politically Correct Image" than they do our public school CHILDREN!

Vote YES on Prop. 8!

Yard signs and bumperstickers

I'm curious what makes someone think they can come up to my car and peel off one of my bumperstickers.  They're messing with my property, and that's against the law.  My wife has wondered if maybe someone has put a bounty on bumperstickers like they did on Prop. 8 yard signs.  That's not much of a sign of tolerance.  It's more like vindictiveness and vandalism.  It is also an attack on my freedom of speech.

If this is what it will be like if Prop. 8 fails, I sincerely hope it does not.

Vote Yes on Prop. 8.

Obama

It was brought to my attention recently that we don't know much about one of our presidential candidates.  I was a bit surprised by the amount of information being withheld.  I do admit some of it might be due to privacy concerns, as I know I don't want the public looking at my entire life, but then I'm not running for public office.  In my mind, nothing should be withheld.  The people have a right to know who they are potentially voting into office.

That being said, I'd like to quote the message in question.  It was pointed out to me on Facebook.com.

"Reasons NOT to vote for Socialism wrapped up in a smile..

Could you help me please find these things, sir? 

Some MORE reasons not to vote for Mr. Barrack Hussein Obama. If you really NEED one, here they are:
1. Occidental College records -- Not released
2. Columbia College records -- Not released
3. Columbia Thesis paper -- not available, locked down by faculty
4. Harvard College records -- Not released, locked down by faculty
5. Selective Service Registration -- Not released
6. Medical records -- Not released
7. Illinois State Senate schedule -- 'not available'
8. Law practice client list -- Not released
9. Certified Copy of original Birth certificate - - Not released
10. Embossed, signed paper Certification of Live Birth -- Not released
11. Harvard Law Review articles published -- None
12. University of Chicago scholarly articles -- None 
13. Your Record of baptism-- Not released or 'not available' 
14. Your Illinois State Senate records--'not available'




You couldn't get a job at McDonalds and become district manager after 143 days of experience.

You couldn't become chief of surgery after 143 days of experience of being a surgeon. 

You couldn't get a job as a teacher and be the superintendent after 143 days of experience.

You couldn't join the military and become a colonel after 143 days of experience. 

You couldn't get a job as a reporter and become the nightly news anchor after 143 days of experience. 



BUT.... 



'From the time Barack Obama was sworn in as a United State Senator, to the time he announced he was forming a Presidential exploratory committee, he logged 143 days of experience in the Senate. That's how many days the Senate was actually in session and working. After 
143 days of work experience, Obama believed he was ready to be Commander In Chief, Leader of the Free World .... 143 days. 

We all have to start somewhere. The senate is a good start, but after 143 days, that's all it is - a start. 

AND, strangely, a large sector of the American public is okay with this and campaigning for him. We wouldn't accept this in our own line of work, yet some are okay with this for the President of the United States of America ? Come on folks, we are not voting for the next American Idol! 

Please, please forward this before it's too late!!!! "

Tolerance

Tolerance often seems to be misunderstood as "you have to accept and believe as I do." That is not tolerance. To quote from the Free Online Dictionary (www.thefreedictionary.com), tolerance is:
tol·er·ance
n.
1. The capacity for or the practice of recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others.

In essence, it is "to agree to disagree."

That being said, I find it rather annoying to hear people complain and claim that certain causes are "intolerant" because they don't agree with someone's point of view.

California Prop 8 is about tolerance.  It is about protecting what marriage is and always has been.  Judging from what has happened in Massachusetts, it will save a lot of taxpayer's money as well.

California Proposition 8

Each election year there always seems to be an issue or two that really draws the public eye, even if it's the presidential candidates.  In most cases, people fall into three different groups:  For, Against, and Undecided.

On the issue of Prop 8, which would amend the California Constitution with the words "only a marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California", there have been few in the middle.  I've seen polls claiming first one way, and then the other.

I don't claim to be a great thinker in the ways of the law, but I have read some interesting articles that I think have extremely valid points.  I'll post a few for the reader to enjoy (or not).

Orson Scott Card

Effects of "Marriage" in Massachusetts