Blogcabin California

As you probably know, since 2004 Liberty Counsel has been involved in Randy Thomasson’s legal cases to harm gay and lesbian families in the name of GOD in California. I have been reporting about Gail J. Knight’s homophobic effort to put the California Marriage Protection Act on the ballot in November. But for Randy to intervene, PLEASE!  It is laughable.  The intervention smacks of desperate fundraising on his behalf.  Randy’s initiative did not qualify and his pale attempt at an intervention is just his way of staying relevant when he is irrelevant. 

The Knight Initiative was circulated prior to the Supreme Courts historic ruling but the masquerading revision as an amendment was certified for the ballot on June 2, 2008 by the Secretary of State. If permitted to proceed to the ballot and if it passes, the discriminatory amendment would write discrimination into the California Constitution, raise Federal Equal Protection grounds, and attempt to nullify the 4-3 ruling of the California Supreme Court issued on May 15. But a few days ago, the National Center for Lesbian Rights, Lambda Legal, the ACLU and Equality California filed suit against California Secretary of State Debra Bowen, who certified the Amendment. Those groups are trying to enforce the Constitutional Right that says a revision (here removing fundamental rights from the Constitution) can only be placed on the ballot by 2/3rd of the legislature along with the position that the initiative is misleading. It is misleading because it plainly states that it does not change California law. Try telling to the thousands of Californians who have been married since June 16, 2008. 

If you want to read the Liberty Counsel’s fundamentally flawed position click on the highlighted term above. It is in .PDF Format. Due to time constraints, I did a quick word search of the words revision and revise to see how they rebutted the petitioner’s arguments. Believe it or not, Liberty Causes must not have read the LAMBDA Legal’s well written Petition because those determinative words, “revision” and “revise” do not appear in the latest filing. However, we cannot sit back and idly watch the Constitutional abuses.  

WE MUST LOVE HONOR CHERISH – WE MUST STOP THE 8  

5:00 PM UPDATE: ACCORDING TO THE SUPREME COURT WEBSITE, OPPOSITION FILED WAS BY THE REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST (THE INITIATIVE PROPOSNENTS, HOLLINGSWORTH/KNIGHT), ALONG WITH A MOTION TO INTERVENE BY CAMPAIGN FOR CALIFORNIA FAMILIES/RANDY THOMASSON.   

WHETHER THOMASSON CAN INTERVENE IS DOUBFUL IN THIS LEGAL ANALYST’S OPINION BECAUSE IN IN MARRIAGE CASES (2008) 43 CAL.4TH 757, 790-791, THE COURT DENIED A SIMILAR REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE, HOLDING STRONG IDEOLOGICAL DISAGREEMENT IS INSUFFICIENT FOR STANDING. STAY TUNEDCHECK OUT THE SUPREME COURT’S DOCKET IN BENNETT V. BOWEN (HOLLINGSWORTH) HERE.