Will a mailing done by opponents of Len Lanzi hurt or help his campaign for State Senate? Over $6000 was spent to send out a mailer to voters in this district. Will voters be swayed? The mailers charaterize Len Lanzi as a “Code Pink Republican”, supported by Log Cabin Republicans. The reverse side says that his opponent is a “Red, white and blue Republican”.
To convince a conservative, you have to think like a conservative, and present arguments based on their core values of religious freedom, individual liberty, limited government, supporting our troops and, if all else fails, political pragmatism.
Scott Schmidt gives conservative reasons here:
http://gaywired.com/Article.cfm?Section=163&ID=19136
The governor appeared Friday at a school in Pacoima to announce the release of $463 million in bond money to pay for new construction at charter schools, where he responded to a reporter’s question about gay marriage.
“The Supreme Court has decided it is unconstitutional to stop people from getting married, same-sex marriage, and therefore we move forward now and let people get married and have same-sex marriage in California,” Schwarzenegger said. “I think that we should move forward, and I hope they do, and I think that what I’ve heard, by June 16th or so, the offices will open up and will make it available.”
Voters approved a state law in 2000 defining marriage as “between a man and a woman,” and Schwarzenegger said Friday he always believed the law should stand until the courts or voters overturned it. He previously explained that he personally believes marriage is “between a man and a woman” but that he does not believe one’s personal belief should be imposed on others.
Conservatives are pursuing a stay that would block gay marriages from taking effect in California until voters have the chance in November to decide on a constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage. Schwarzenegger opposes the stay and the constitutional amendment.
http://www.sacbee.com/static/weblogs/capitolalertlatest/012903.html
“California Log Cabin supports OUR Governor and we thank him for supporting fairness for All Americans”, says Terry Hamilton, Chairman, California Log Cabin.
Log Cabin outreach, voter registration, promoting candidates and issues I’m really excited for our participation at this year’s Long Beach Lesbian and Gay Pride Festival. We had 17 volunteers over the weekend, and for most this was either their first volunteer event, ever, with Log Cabin, or their first volunteer event in a very long time! It’s worth noting that both the Los Angeles County Chapter and the Orange County Caucus had healthy volunteer contingents. In addition to participation from our own members, we also got fifty-one new names and e-mails of prospective members or supporters. I am confident that this event was meaningful and will bare much “fruit.” I hope that we can continue to have a presence there. Oh, I forgot to mention, neither the Democratic Party nor the Stonewall Dems were present. Is that not just indicative of where the other Party is this year? —Kevin
http://www.logcabin.org/logcabinca/photo_gallery_pride_festivals.html?content_preview=ww8gxb2v5t8i6d
The California Supreme court decision on gay marriage was historic, a long
time coming, hard fought and about time.
Unfortunately and not surprisingly Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is receiving large
numbers of phone calls from the supporters of “Limits on Marriage” (The constitutional
amendment banning same sex marriage in California ) about his comment to
Log Cabin Republicans that he wouldnʼt ‘ t support a constitutional amendment.
We don ‘ t want him to go back on his word.
He must hear from us too.
THANK him for his declining to support a constitutional
ban on gay marriage. (They don ‘ t ask what state you are from, by the way.)
Now it is automated and you will not talk to anyone, just push the number for pro
Supreme Court decision.
To vote in support of the Supreme Court ‘ s decision on LGBT marriage:
call 1-916-445-2841
press 1, 5, 1, 1
After you ‘ ve done this send it on to all supporters you know.
It couldnʼt ‘ t be easier to vote… please take 15 seconds right now to do it!
Click here for the new animation.
The purpose of this post is to inject a little humor. Did it work?
Metropolitan News-Enterprise
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Page 7
IN MY OPINION:
Is The Proposed ‘Limit On Marriage’ Initiative Too Late?
By KEVIN NORTE
The recent California Constitutional Right to Marry case, according to my analysis, calls into question the currently proposed “Limit to Marry” Voter Initiative Constitutional Initiative. If Secretary of State Debra Bowen places it on the ballot, she would be wise to have the Legislative Analysts’ opinion consider the following cited cases and also discuss the issue with Attorney General Jerry Brown to inquire whether or not the proposed initiative can even be legally placed on the ballot.
California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, Assembly member Mark Leno, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, and Equality California Executive Director Geoff Kors, and one of the main attorneys on the winning side of the marriage case, David Codell would be wise to immediately contact Bowen and Brown to raise the issue of the legality of the proposed initiative so that the voters of California are properly informed that there may be a potential problem in enacting the initiative if it passes this November (assuming it qualifies for the ballot).
As noted in McFadden v. Jordan (1948) 32 Cal.2d 330, 333: “The initiative power reserved by the people by amendment to the Constitution in 1911 (art. IV, s 1) applies only to the proposing and the adopting or rejecting of ‘laws and amendments to the Constitution’ and does not purport to extend to a constitutional revision.”
The proposed initiative appears to now attempt to revise the California Constitution to remove the fundamental right to marry and equal protection that gays and lesbians are now afforded under the California Constitution. With that in mind, the Secretary of State must be aware of the following case:
Rippon v. Bowen (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 1308, 1313:
Article XVIII of the California Constitution allows for amendment of the Constitution by the Legislature, or initiative and revision of the Constitution by the Legislature, or a constitutional convention. There is no other method for revising or amending the Constitution. (Livermore v. Waite (1894) 102 Cal. 113, 117, 36 P. 424 (Livermore).)
“ ‘[A]mendment’ implies such an addition or change within the lines of the original instrument as will effect an improvement, or better carry out the purpose for which it was framed.” (Livermore, supra, 102 Cal. at pp. 118-119, 36 P. 424.) The “revision/amendment analysis has a dual aspect, requiring us to examine both the quantitative and qualitative effects of the measure on our constitutional scheme. Substantial changes in either respect could amount to a revision.” (Raven v. Deukmejian (1990) 52 Cal.3d 336, 350, 276 Cal.Rptr. 326, 801 P.2d 1077 (Raven).) “[A]n enactment which is so extensive in its provisions as to change directly the ‘substantial entirety’ of the Constitution by the deletion or alteration of numerous existing provisions may well constitute a revision thereof. However, even a relatively simple enactment may accomplish such far reaching changes in the nature of our basic governmental plan as to amount to a revision also.” (Amador Valley Joint Union High Sch. Dist. v. State Bd. of Equalization (1978) 22 Cal.3d 208, 223, 149 Cal.Rptr. 239, 583 P.2d 1281 (Amador).)
According to the In Re Marriage Cases (May 15, 2008) 2008 WL 2051892: “Although our state Constitution does not contain any explicit reference to a “right to marry,” past California cases establish beyond question that the right to marry is a fundamental right whose protection is guaranteed to all persons by the California Constitution…. In light of the fundamental nature of the substantive rights embodied in the right to marry — and their central importance to an individual’s opportunity to live a happy, meaningful, and satisfying life as a full member of society — the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all individuals and couples, without regard to their sexual orientation. “
The proposed initiative originally sought to limit the Constitutional right to marry to opposite sex couples and, thus as originally drafted, it was intended to limit the right to marry to a man and a woman. But an amendment can no longer accomplish this. The Right to Marry exists and in light of the recent ruling, the initiative’s unintended consequence is an attempt to revise (as opposed to amend) the Constitution which, as explained in In Re Marriage Cases (May 15, 2008) 2008 WL 2051892, is a fundamental Constructional right to “all individuals and couples, without regard to their sexual orientation.”
“Whether an initiative constitutes an amendment or revision to the Constitution does not necessarily depend on the number of constitutional provisions it affects, but on the nature of the changes it makes. (Grodin et al., The California State Constitution: A Reference Guide, supra, at pp. 303-304.) For a revision to be found, “it must necessarily or inevitably appear from the face of the challenged provision that the measure will substantially alter the basic governmental framework set forth in our Constitution.” See California Assn. of Retail Tobacconists v. State of California (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 792, 833-834.
As Justice Moreno noted in a concurring opinion in Californians For An Open Primary v. McPherson (2006) 38 Cal.4th 735, 788:
Voters can propose amendments to the Constitution that will be placed on the ballot if the requisite number of signatures are obtained, but they may not propose constitutional revisions. (See Cal. Const., art. XVIII, § 3; Raven v. Deukmejian (1990) 52 Cal.3d 336, 349, 276 Cal.Rptr. 326, 801 P.2d 1077.)
See California Assn. of Retail Tobacconists v. State of California (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 792, 833-834:
Although the electorate may amend the Constitution by initiative (art. XVIII, § 3), a revision of the Constitution may be accomplished only by a constitutional convention and popular ratification (art. XVIII, § 2) or by legislative submission of the measure to the electorate (art. XVIII, § 1). (Raven v. Deukmejian, supra, 52 Cal.3d at p. 349, 276 Cal.Rptr. 326, 801 P.2d 1077; Amador Valley Joint Union High Sch. Dist. v. State Bd. of Equalization (1978) 22 Cal.3d 208, 221, 149 Cal.Rptr. 239, 583 P.2d 1281.)
It has been suggested “the revision provision is based on the principle that ‘comprehensive changes’ to the Constitution require more formality, discussion and deliberation than is available through the initiative process. [Citation.]” (Raven v. Deukmejian, supra, 52 Cal.3d at pp. 349-350, 276 Cal.Rptr. 326, 801 P.2d 1077; cf. Legislature v. Eu, supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 506, 286 Cal.Rptr. 283, 816 P.2d 1309.)
The revision/amendment analysis requires the court “to examine both the quantitative and qualitative effects of the measure on our constitutional scheme[, as] [s]ubstantial changes in either respect could amount to a revision. [Citations.]” (Raven v. Deukmejian, supra, 52 Cal.3d at p. 350, 276 Cal.Rptr. 326, 801 P.2d 1077; Legislature v. Eu, supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 506, 286 Cal.Rptr. 283, 816 P.2d 1309.)
Whether an initiative constitutes an amendment or revision to the Constitution does not necessarily depend on the number of constitutional provisions it affects, but on the nature of the changes it makes. (Grodin et al., The California State Constitution: A Reference Guide, supra, at pp. 303-304.) For a revision to be found, “it must necessarily or inevitably appear from the face of the challenged provision that the measure will substantially alter the basic governmental framework set forth in our Constitution. [Citations.]” (Legislature v. Eu, supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 510, 286 Cal.Rptr. 283, 816 P.2d 1309.)
Therefore, Schwarzenegger, Bowen, Leno and Newsome should use their constitutional powers to obtain an opinion of the Attorney General as to whether the initiative is an amendment or a revision that would revise the fundamental right to marry as it applies to same gender couples because it would remove that right for them and deny gays and lesbians equal protection as it applies to that fundamental right.
(The writer is a research attorney for the Los Angeles Superior Court and has been with the Court since 1991. Norte is currently assigned to Judges Ronald Sohigian and Gregory Alarcon.)
AUTHOR’S POST NOTE- The George Court has already determined that pre-election review is not precluded when the challenge is based upon a claim that the initiative may not properly be submitted to the voters because it amounts to a constitutional revision rather than an amendment. (Independent Energy Producers Assn. v. McPherson (2006) 38 Cal. 4th 1020, 1029 (unanimous decision & opinion written by Chief Justice Ronald George).)
“What should a local government do if it believes an initiative measure is unlawful and should not be presented to the voters? (Save Stanislaus Area Farm Economy v. Board of Supervisors (1993)13 Cal.App.4th 141, 149.) A governmental body, or any person or entity with standing, may file a petition for writ of mandate, seeking a court order removing the initiative measure from the ballot. (See Farley v. Healey[] [(1967)] 67 Cal.2d [325,] 327, 62 Cal.Rptr. 26, 431 P.2d 650.) But such entity or person may not unilaterally decide to prevent a duly qualified initiative from being presented to the electorate.
The Orange County Log Cabin Republican Caucus approved the following endorsements for the June Primary.
Our endorsements were based more on their Republican credentials and support from others. They were NOT based on their views on gay or lesbian issues. There is nothing a local elected official can do on these issues so it is not a factor in our decisions.
SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE
Office No. 4: Nick Thompson
Office No. 8: Jon Fish
Office No.12: Kermit Marsh
Office No. 25: John Nho Trong Nguyen
Board of Education
Area 1: Felix Rocha, Jr.
Area 3: Ken L. Williams
Capistrano School Board
Ken Maddox
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
1st District: Janet Nguyen
3rd District: Bill Campbell
SERRANO WATER DISTRICT
District 1: Richard A. Freschi
ORANGE COUNTY REPUBLICAN CENTRAL COMMITTEE
60th AD: John Karczynski (Log Cabin Republican Member)
67th AD: Scott Baugh
68th AD: Kermit Marsh, Ed Royce, Sr.
69th AD: No recommendation
70th AD: Linda Ackerman, Mary Young
71st AD: Todd Spitzer
72nd AD: No recommendation
73rd AD: Nancy Padberg
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL (Not on the ballot until November but he’s a Log Cabin Republicans Member)
John Karczynski
The following article appeared on May 18th in the “Los Angeles Times,” spotlighting yet another Republican who upheld Gay Rights.
Ronald M. George, a moderate Republican who voted with the majority, likens the case to civil rights battles. By Maura Dolan
Los Angeles Times Staff WriterMay 18, 2008 SAN FRANCISCO — In the days leading up to the California Supreme Court’s historic same-sex marriage ruling Thursday, the decision “weighed most heavily” on Chief Justice Ronald M. George — more so, he said, than any previous case in his nearly 17 years on the court.The court was poised 4 to 3 not only to legalize same-sex marriage but also to extend to sexual orientation the same broad protections against bias previously saved for race, gender and religion.
The decision went further than any other state high court’s and would stun legal scholars, who have long characterized George and his court as cautious and middle of the road. But as he read the legal arguments, the 68-year-old moderate Republican was drawn by memory to a long ago trip he made with his European immigrant parents through the American South. There, the signs warning “No Negro” or “No colored” left “quite an indelible impression on me,” he recalled in a wide-ranging interview Friday.“I think,” he concluded, “there are times when doing the right thing means not playing it safe.”Yet he described his thinking on the constitutional status of state marriage laws as more of an evolution than an epiphany, the result of his reading and long discussions with staff lawyers.
As he sometimes does with the most incendiary cases, George assigned the majority opinion to himself. He wrote and rewrote, poring over draft after draft. Each word change had to be approved by the other three justices joining him in the majority. Even the likely dissenters had to be told in “pink slips” of every word change. On Wednesday, the long-awaited ruling was finally ready. Court Clerk Fritz Ohlrich locked up stacks of the fat, stapled court opinions in his office to protect against leaks, and George’s staff asked that security be beefed up. A fellow justice told George she would be at her desk in the morning because she wanted “to be part of history.”On Thursday, George was in his chambers, being interviewed for a documentary on death penalty administration. He said he wished he had canceled the interview. He was on camera when he heard “a big roar” from the crowd outside.
George, who grew up in Los Angeles, said he counts gays among his friends. Four years ago, he peered out his chambers’ windows across from San Francisco City Hall to watch gay couples lining up to marry. He saw the showers of rice, the popping of champagne corks, the euphoria of the couples.
He later joined four other justices in nullifying the marriage licenses, which the court deemed to have been granted illegally by San Francisco. The court refused to take up the constitutional questions of same-sex marriage then, insisting the cases work their way up through the courts.
A trial judge ruled in favor of same-sex marriage. A court of appeal overturned that ruling. And finally, the case was on George’s desk.
‘Very fatalistic’
George said he had voted to void the marriage licenses because he did not think they should be “in limbo” while the courts tackled the constitutional issues. Once he took up the constitutional challenge, he said he did not permit any consideration of political fallout.
“I am very fatalistic about these things,” he said. “If you worry, always looking over your shoulders, then maybe it’s time to hang up your robe.”
Court rules bar George from discussing the ruling until it takes effect in 30 days or more.
During the two-hour interview with The Times, he refused to disclose anything about the court’s internal deliberations and responded to a number of questions by reading aloud from the decision. His elegant and comfortable chambers had neat stacks of papers piled on the floor, all over his desk and on a long conference table.
Asked whether he thought most Californians would accept the marriage ruling, George said flatly: “I really don’t know.”
He indicated he saw the fight for same-sex marriage as a civil rights case akin to the legal battle that ended laws banning interracial marriage. He noted that the California Supreme Court moved ahead of public sentiment 60 years ago when it became the first in the country to strike down the anti-miscegenation laws.
California’s decision, in a case called Perez vs. Sharp, preceded the U.S. Supreme Court’s action on the issue by 19 years. Even after that ruling, Californians passed an initiative that would permit racial discrimination in housing. The state high court again responded by overturning the law, George said.
Rather than ignoring voters, “what you are doing is applying the Constitution, the ultimate expression of the people’s will,” George said.
By the time of the same-sex marriage oral argument in March, three other justices had tentatively decided to join George’s opinion. They are Justices Joyce L. Kennard, Kathryn Mickle Werdegar and (sole Democrat) Carlos R. Moreno, the court’s more liberal wing.
George said the oral argument marked the “highest point” for the court, and he was “so glad” the session was televised. “I was incredibly proud of how we acquitted ourselves in such a difficult and well publicized case,” he said.
Relations among the justices remained warm and cordial. George said he was even pleased with the dissents, which contended that a decision on same-sex marriage should be made by the people, not the court.
Some judges in other states that had considered same-sex marriage had written in ways that were “homophobic” and demeaning to lesbians and gays, statements “that you don’t find” in California’s dissenting opinions, George said. They were signed by Justices Marvin Baxter, Ming Chin and Carol A. Corrigan.
‘A real conundrum’
“When is it that a court should act?” George mused. “When is it that a court is shirking its responsibility by not acting, and when is a court overreaching? That’s a real conundrum. I have respect for people coming out on different sides of this issue.”
George’s reputation for caution is based on the court’s tendency, under him, to decide cases narrowly, refusing to reach issues not necessary to the case at hand. Advocates thrust the central constitutional question of equality for gay people on the court; there was no way to avoid it.
George also had taken risks before. Shortly after Gov. Pete Wilson elevated him to chief justice in 1996, George obtained enough votes to change the court’s stance on parental consent for abortion. He wrote the ruling that overturned the state’s parental consent law, sparking a campaign by anti-abortion groups to oust him.
After a justice’s appointment, voters are asked to retain him or her at the next gubernatorial election. At the time of the parental consent decision, some judges were just squeaking by their retention votes.
Eric George, 39, a Los Angeles lawyer and the chief’s eldest son, decided to mount a full campaign to protect his father’s seat. After George was reconfirmed by a healthy margin, Eric George said he gave his father some playful advice.
“Could you wait at least 10 years for another controversial decision like this?” he asked.
George said the only other decision that anguished him as much as same-sex marriage occurred at the beginning of his career, when as a Los Angeles County Superior Court judge he insisted that a serial killer known as the “Hillside Strangler” be prosecuted over the objections of the Los Angeles district attorney.
The district attorney’s office said there wasn’t enough evidence to win a conviction, so George asked the attorney general’s office to prosecute it. The trial, expected to last a year, took two years. George remembers warning his wife, Barbara, “This may become known as George’s folly.” The jury eventually convicted on nine of 10 murder counts.
Santa Clara University law professor Gerald Uelmen, who has closely followed George’s court tenure, said “the biggest surprise” of the marriage ruling was that George favored it. Uelmen said George must have done “some real soul searching.”
The “very carefully written opinion” reflects that George “is very sensitive to how this will be perceived,” Uelmen said. “He realized that this more than any other thing he does as chief justice will define his legacy. He’ll certainly take a good deal of political heat over this.”
Mathew Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel, said he had long expected George to vote against same-sex marriage.
“His change from where I thought he would be is baffling,” said Staver, whose group promotes traditional marriage.
UCLA law professor Brad Sears said, “Definitely what created the majority was George’s support.”
A proposed initiative that would amend the Constitution to again ban same-sex marriage is headed for the November ballot, but even if it passes, gays in California will enjoy heightened protections from discrimination as a result of Thursday’s ruling. George will appear on the state ballot for retention in two years.
He went home Thursday night drained and discovered a card left by friends at his San Francisco apartment. It was a Japanese watercolor of a branch with red berries. His friends had written “Congratulations!” inside.
“Why not go out on a limb?” the greeting on the card read.
"Opinions expressed herein are solely those of the authors. For official Log Cabin California information, please visit our official website."