Where the Leftist Central Planners Want to Force Us To Go

While small businesses, including restaurants, were locked down by government force, Democratic California Governor Gavin Newsom partied with a group at an expensive restaurant. The California Democrats have decreed gasoline-powered automobiles won't be sold in California in a little over a decade from now, while the state's power infrastructure can't handle current demand for electricity. In the county of Los Angeles, freeways can't handle existing traffic, but the "road fund" is regularly spent on buses, rail, and non-transportation projects and programs.

What the Leftist Democrats are doing in California - which they'd love to take national - might not make sense to someone who has common sense, who doesn't seek to control others. But what the power-hungry social engineering central planners are doing makes sense when you realize what they want, and they've publicly said so and/or demonstrated, is to:

• Install most of our children into government-controlled institutions from six weeks of age into their twenties.
• Get those children dependent on government for most of their meals, served at or distributed by the schools.
• Move most of us into large apartment buildings, especially ones with commercial space on the first level or three.
• Ensure those apartment units will have water and power controlled and limited by remote, and waste (like the trash you throw away) controlled, limited, and analyzed.
• Force us out of automobiles we control into government-run mass transit.
• Discourage entrepreneurship and small businesses so that we're all working for government or large businesses, which can be more easily controlled by government, or dependent on government redistribution of money.
• Get most of us dependent on the state for health care.
• Disarm private citizens when it comes to defending themselves, their family, or their property.

We can see this at the state level and with the counties and cities of San Francisco and Los Angeles. They are constantly seeking to make government bigger, more intrusive, and more controlling, and get as many of us dependent on government as they can.

They hate liberty for anyone other than their own little clique.

Resist Leftism. Defeat Leftism. Defend Liberty.

A Safe and Reliable Water Supply is a Basic Element of Civilization

The Leftist Democrats controlling California and Los Angeles county are failing again. They are failing at some basic, core responsibilities.

Despite people literally fleeing the state, there is again a water "shortage" and residents are yet again being told to reduce their water usage.

Ever look west? California, including Los Angeles county, is on the world's largest body of water.

There isn't a shortage of water. There's a shortage of competent, dedicated service to the residents of California by people who are supposed to be public servants.

The Leftists running the state will blame "climate change" for their failure.

Hogwash.

Capital Punishment Is Justice

It is justice for some murderers to receive capital punishment; to be put to death.

Here in California, the voters have repeatedly supported this.

Many other states and the federal government carry out such sentences, yet in California, with almost 700 murderers on "Death Row," we haven't had an execution since 2006.

Our current Governor, Hairdo McGungrabber (a.k.a. Gavin Newsom), has made it clear he will not sign off on any execution. He has actively tried to ensure there will never be another execution in California.

For each person on Death Row, there was at least one person, and quite often many, who were murdered; some very painfully. Then their surviving loved ones were put through the anguish of an investigation and a trial. The murderer always or almost always denied their guilt rather than taking responsibility and apologizing, but the evidence was overwhelming. Our fellow citizens had to sit through jury duty for a trial and the penalty phase, usually being exposed to gruesome crime scene photos. They struggled and then recommended capital punishment with all twelve jurors agreeing. Then a judge considered everything and agreed.

The just thing would be to execute every person on Death Row.

Premeditated murder warrants capital punishment.

If we value human life, then premeditated murder should bring about the possibility of being punished, through due process, with execution.

It is absurd to equate a due process execution with premeditated murder. Anyone who does that reveals that they aren't serious thinkers. I understand the argument some people make that the state should not have this power, but let's be real. The state has the power to kill. If it is going to use that power at all, executing convicted murderers is a just way to use it.

The state has that power because we, the people have delegated that power to the state. The alternative is that we take it back and go back to familial clans carrying out justice.

Unfortunately, just thirteen murderers have been executed since California resumed them in the early 1990s. Which one of these shouldn't have been executed? Answer: NONE. Each one deserved it.

People like our atrocious Governor say that capital punishment isn't applied equally.

It's true that wealthy people can afford better defense teams. That's true about any crime. Shall we release all criminals from prison immediately and shut them down? (Some of the Left say yes.) What's the alternative to wealthy people having better lawyers? Requiring all defendants have a randomly assigned lawyer?

However, none of the anti-justice people can name a single one of those executed thirteen who were innocent. They were all guilty, and they all deserved to be executed.

Lethal injection isn't "cruel and unusual punishment." Some of the same people who claim it is support people who haven't murdered anyone choosing it for themselves, calling it "death with dignity." The people who wrote and adopted the "cruel and unusual" phrase into the Constitution would laugh anyone out of the room who claimed lethal injection for premeditated murder qualified as such. But I wouldn't mind going back to the way murderers were executed in the 1780s, if that's the game people want to play.

Everyone executed in California since the early 1990s, and everyone who has been on Death Row for a while, has had their cases reviewed over and over again. If they weren't guilty, that would have been discovered. Many of them have slaughtered their own spouse and children. They have morally forfeited their life.

If the state will not carry out the duty delegated to it, then the people are going to take that power back. If I'm ever on a jury in such a case, in which a family member or associate has executed a murderer, how likely do you think it will be for me to vote to convict?

I'm not alone.

Are You Leaving California or Another Blue State?

For the first time since the state was created, California recently lost population. That's not "grew at a slower rate than expected." No, we literally had a population DECREASE.

One reason is that fewer people are moving to California and more people are fleeing California.

Are you leaving California? Are you thinking about it? There are countless Facebook groups (and I'm sure other social media and websites) all about leaving California. 

I'm BEGGING you: If you leave California (or any other "Blue state"), when you get to your new state, VOTE FOR LIMITED GOVERNMENT*. Even if you haven't realized it yet, one of the reasons people (and, most likely you), have left or want out is a direct result of the policies of statist/Leftist Democrats. If you're a Democrat, please don't fall into the trap of thinking it's just Newsom (or  your Governor). It's not. It's the general mentality of growing government that is one of the main reasons California has the trouble it is having,

If you're a Republican, a conservative, libertarian, or someone else who is leaving or planning to, PLEASE consider a "Purple state" instead of a "Red state." If not a purple state, at least consider moving to a purple Congressional District in a red state.

Why?

Because we have a country to save. 

We need more states to go from purple to red. 

We need more Congressional Districts to go from purple to red.

People Are Leaving California

For the first time in since records have been kept, which is about 120 years, people are leaving the State of California.

The population of California has literally gone down.

Really. 

This is not just a reduction in the expected increase. It isn't that California's population is growing more slowly than other states.

The actual number of California residents has decreased.

Absurdities in California

Time for the March of the Criminals and Commies again, since it is May 1. And of course it is pure coincidence that the Caravan of Wannabe Invaders came all the way to the California portion of the border and arrived at this time. Riiiiiiight. What a bunch of stupid theatrics.

Someone forgot they were supposed to be in the shadows!

Speaking of stupid cultural appropriation of kabuki theater, Larry Lopez, appearing under his stage name Nativo, is still doing a very poor imitation of Jesse Jackson. Or maybe Gloria Alred? Whichever. Larry, whose attempt to beat a criminal prosecution had him either feigning dementia eight years ago, or making a miraculous recovery since, or perhaps is still demented (I'll let you decide), made it into the Orange County Register and either the reporter was too lazy or agenda-driven to note the paper's previous coverage of Larry, or the editors decided to cover for him. It even appears to me that they have prevented comments from being made on the article.

If you're not interested, at least scroll down for a reminder that rioting has lasting negative consequences.

The State of California

[I'm bumping this up because the new gasoline tax is about to take effect.]

I was born in California and have lived my entire life in California. The state has great climate and geography, natural resources, and human resources. Unfortunately, it is ruled unchallenged by gender-confused, big government, nanny state, unionist, environut reconquistadors, or, to be redundant, Leftists. Democrats have a supermajority in the state Senate and Assembly, and our Governor is a Democrat. These are not moderate Democrats, either. They are far on the Left. Not only is San Francisco city/county led by Leftists, but so is Los Angeles County and the City of Los Angeles. L.A.’s Mayor is itching to run for Governor or even President.

Illinois is having trouble and California isn't far behind. This is what the rest of the Union faces the more Left it goes.

Here are just some of the things going on in the state right now, that are getting closer and closer to driving me and my family from our home state.

The Stupidity of Identity Politics

If you would have asked me if the President of the California NAACP would be in favor of expanding the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors or against it, I would have guessed "in favor". And yet, Alice A. Huffman has a commentary in the Pink Transgender Lady (a.k.a. Los Angeles Times) advising against it, which means I agree Huffman!

State Constitutional Amendment 12, or SCA 12, would allow California voters to amend the state’s Constitution to require that L.A. County expand its Board of Supervisors from five to seven members and create an elected chief executive position with outsize powers and no accountability to the board.

That means voters all over California would get to decide the structure of the Los Angeles county leadership. The Amendment would not change things in any other county.

Currently, all legislative and executive power of the Los Angeles county government (other than whatever powers are retained by elected Department positions such as Sheriff) flows from the five-member board, and the last time an incumbent running for re-election was defeated was in 1980. Members of the board kept getting re-elected until they retired, until statewide term limits were put in place. It is those terms limits that have likely been a major inspiration for the proposed Amendment, as state legislators would very much like to have more elected positions in which to land when they are termed out of Sacramento. There are over ten million residents in the county of Los Angeles, so even if the board had two more members, each one would represent well over a million people, and there's no doubt that a new elected executive would be a Democrat staging position for Governor or President.

What caught my eye, though was that people are touting "diversity" to support and oppose the Amendment.

Wrong Turns on the California Roads

What a surprise! Unions of engineers and laborers who rely on taxpayer dollars want higher taxes and fees to "fix the roads" in California, and the Leftist Democrats who literally control the state like the idea of higher fees on automobiles and higher taxes on gasoline and diesel.

Mind you, the fuel is already taxed to build and maintain the roads, but the fund has been raided by politicians and what's left has often been spent on underused transit projects.

Over and over and over again, Californians have been taxed with promises of "fixing" one thing, only to have the money go elsewhere.

Not this time, say the Democrats, like Lucy offering Charlie Brown a chance to kick the football.

They claim that the law they just adopted will amend the state constitution to ensure these new taxes and fees will go to the roads. Ah, but 1) they sneak in "and transit"; 2) even if they stick to this, they'll simply redirect the existing taxes and fees away; 3) there's always a loophole that allows the money to be redirected.

To add to the nefarious nature of this, the increase is tied to inflation, so that means the pain for the taxpayers will never ease, and since raising fuel taxes causes inflation, it's a vicious cycle. Gas taxes go up, inflation goes up as a result (because just about every good and service we use has transportation costs), and so gas taxes go up again.

This is what happens when your state is completely controlled by Democrats. Every statewide office is held by a Democrat and the Democrats have enough of the needlessly bicameral legislature that they can do whatever they want. And they do. So as the socialists, unionists, and reconquistadors who control Los Angeles and San Fransisco run Sacramento, everyone else in the state has to bend over and take it.

It's That Time Again in Anaheim

It seems every couple of years, or even multiple times per year, something riles up the people who have nothing better to do than assault, destroy, block traffic, and whine. Anaheim is a big city, and they do have these clownish agitators, taggers, and gangs, too.

Let's take a look at what is going on. The Orange County Register had a report about an incident partially recorded on smartphone video.

YouTube videos surfaced Wednesday that purport to show a Tuesday altercation in Anaheim with several juveniles and an off-duty Los Angeles police officer who discharged a firearm during the scuffle.

It is important to note that this is NOT an Anaheim police officer, This is an off-duty LAPD officer who was in Anaheim.

The confrontation began over ongoing issues with juveniles walking across the officer's property, Wyatt said.

STAY OFF OF PRIVATE PROPERTY WHERE YOU AREN'T INVITED. No trespassing, no confrontation. Simple!!!

David Benkof Dismantles the Popular Vote Claim

If you're a party-line partisan, you're going to have disagreements with Benkof, whether you're a Republican, Democrat, or belong to another party. I wouldn't call myself a party-line partisan, but I'm in the conservative camp consistently enough that I don't always agree with Benkof. To his credit, Benkof seeks out thoughtful disagreement, which makes his arguments better. Because of these things, I'm happy when he writes something with which I can completely agree that makes arguments I hadn't grasped before.

His latest column at the Daily Caller is an example. It is provocatively titled "The Popular Vote Is A Hoax." As he says in the column, he voted for Secretary Clinton, but his fellow HRC voters need to stop pointing to her winning the "popular vote".

Preposterously, since the election some leading Democrats have been calling the Electoral College racist and even akin to slavery. But usually leftists argue the opposite – that popular vote systems are racist, not those that count by jurisdictions. Heavily Democratic California passed a voting-rights law in 2001 that allowed minority groups to sue cities with “at-large” systems of electing councilmembers. Supporters of such laws argue that citywide systems (the popular vote) stifle minority voices, and thus only Electoral College-like district elections ensure racial fairness.

This is a very important point. I have been a witness to local governments in California being subjected to lawsuits and other objections that demand voting districts. An example is that a city might have five councilmembers and only one or none of "Latino ancestry" even though about half of the city's population fits into that category. This is seen as evidence of a problem, even though it presumes that 1) all of those residents are citizens, 2) all of those citizens vote; 3) they only vote for people of Latino ancestry. Anyway, the point is, it has been decided that each district needs representation.

Of course people will object and that mayors are often elected by citywide popular vote and districts elect members of the House of Representatives, rather than having all voters decide every member of the House. Yes, but we have to remember our nation is a union of states. Those states are republics or commonwealths that have always retained some powers, some degree of sovereignty. This is why the voters of each state elect their own Governor, Senators, and certain other statewide offices rather than having them appointed by Congress and/or the President. It is the states that collectively elect the President, not a direct national popular vote. We are a union of states, not a centralized government with 50 divisions called states, plus districts and territories.

Not that it matters much, because a popular-vote constitutional amendment would probably be unconstitutional. That seeming absurdity dates to a wrinkle the Founding Fathers ironed out in drafting the Constitution. The Electoral College is based on the two-chamber legislative structure known as the Connecticut Compromise, which gave big states like Virginia representation by population in the House; and small states like New Jersey an equal voice in the Senate.

After that careful balancing act, the Founders froze their hard work with the only permanent exception to the provision allowing constitutional amendments: that the Connecticut Compromise could not be repealed without the consent of every affected state (look it up: Article V).

How many of you were ever taught about this?!? Whine all you want about smaller or less populous states having a disproportionate influence; this was the contract to which the states agreed. Without this conditions, we literally would not have the country we do. Some states would not have joined the union. They joined, at least in part, because of what the Constitution assured.

In fact, the nominees themselves might very well have been different without the Electoral College. Candidates garner primary endorsements, volunteers, donations, and votes based mostly on their case that they would be the strongest nominee in November – under the rules of the Electoral College. Marco Rubio, to take one example, may have looked like a stronger 2016 nominee under a popular vote system, because votes from his fellow Latinos in Texas and California would matter, whereas they barely register in the Electoral College. If Trump – or Hillary – had lost the nomination, what relevance would her 2.7 million-vote margin have then?

Read it all.

Secretary Clinton and President-elect Trump, and every other candidate, entered the race under the understanding and implicit agreement that the Electoral College is how we choose our President.

Let People Break Laws Because: Lawbreakers

So much for hiding in the shadows. People who are breaking laws by coming or staying here illegally are again demanding we change how we do things to accommodate them. Look, pal, I welcome legal immigrants with open arms and a big smile and congratulations, but I still expect them to adapt to the Union, not have the USA adapt to them. We sure as heck shouldn't change a darn thing to make life any easier for someone who didn't follow the rules to begin with.

Kate Linthicum has the article at the Pink Transgendered Lady, which only allows you so many clicks per months before they want $. So keep that in mind if you are thinking about clicking through.

This is how the article is headlined:

Immigrants Rights Groups Urge Changes in Car Impound Policies
Activists persuaded the LAPD to amend its policy on unlicensed drivers, and the number of cars impounded last year fell 39%. They hope the Sheriff's Department and other police agencies follow suit.

An immigrant is someone who comes here and stays here legally. A foreigner who is here illegally is an illegal alien. Calling these people "Immigrants Rights Groups" is dishonest.

A 2011 state law requires police at drunk-driving checkpoints to give unlicensed drivers the chance to call someone with a license to take the car before it is towed.

They dropped the provision where the police were also required to offer them taxpayer-funded sex change operations.

But that law does not apply to routine traffic stops, and activists complain that unlicensed drivers across the county are losing their cars after being pulled over for minor infractions, such as making a wrong turn or driving without a seat belt. In many cases, the cars are impounded for 30 days at a fee of more than $1,000.

That's because they aren't supposed to be driving in the first place. What is the point of having a license if it doesn't allow you to do anything that someone without the license can do?

Activists say impound policies unfairly target immigrants here illegally, who cannot obtain licenses in California.

Yeah, you know those bank robbery laws unfairly target people who want money that isn't theirs.

At a news conference Wednesday held by a group called the Free Our Cars Coalition, Mexican immigrant Alma Castaneda said she and her husband have had their cars impounded five times for unlicensed driving. 

By "immigrant" the paper probably means illegal alien. In what other country would someone stand up at a press conference and admit to breaking federal law, and then complain that they were caught breaking state law five times?

That is how [whiny illegal aliens] persuaded the Los Angeles Police Department to make major changes to its impound policy, said Zach Hoover, a Baptist minister who leads an alliance of religious and community groups called LA Voice.

I won't hold my breath for the paper to run an editorial criticizing Hoover for trying to put religion into the law.

The new rules drew lawsuits from the Los Angeles Police Protective League, which represents rank-and-file officers, and from a national group called Judicial Watch that said the policy is unfair to taxpayers. California State Atty. Gen. Kamala Harris issued an opinion that the LAPD's impound policies were legal.

What does the law matter to Harris? She encourages lawbreaking.

If it is so difficult to live here as an illegal alien, then tough. I understand why people prefer the USA, especially over Mexico. However, they're going to have the deal with our laws, at least until they get as much political clout as marriage neutering advocates, who can simply ignore laws. We need to protect everyone, not just make things easier for illegal aliens.

The False Compromise

What if you were a California voter who had an earned degree from the University of California Los Angeles – a state institution – and someone else who did not attend the university nor did the coursework insisted that spending his time sunning himself on the beach was just as valid use of his time, and demanded he also be awarded the same degree from UCLA?

What if you, as a voter, said "no" to this idea twice? Would you consider it a good compromise if your degree was rescinded so that you and the beach bum would be treated "equally"? My guess is no.

The False Compromise is getting government out of marriage licensing entirely (or so they say), either by dropping the word "marriage" or not recognizing personal unions at all. Michael A. Lindenberger of Time Magazine took a look at that. First he mentions Jewish and Catholic rituals that do not get licensing from the state. But these rituals do not involve the sharing or transfer of property, nor do these rituals naturally tend to result in bringing children into the world, or subjecting them to an unrelated adult as head of their home. Those and other reasons are why marriage is different.

And for non-believers or those for whom the word marriage is less important, the civil union license issued by the state would be all they needed to unlock the benefits reserved in most states, and in federal law, for "married" couples.

This is coming from the assumption that any two people who claim to be a couple should have those benefits. Why are those benefits issued in the first place? There is a reasoning behind it. Domestic partnerships in California were not created for the benefit of the state – more to satisfy the demands of same-sex couples, many of whom ended up not satisfied by something that treated them as married. And thus, the people of the state thought they were helping people who turned around and used that help against them, using the partnerships law as Trojan Horse to neuter state marriage licensing.

Both sets of lawyers agreed that the idea would resolve the equal protection issue.

Sure – if you stop government issuing of any sort of licensing, then everyone has equal non-access.
Why try to pretend marriage is nothing more than a domestic partnership or civil union? Let's really go for "equality" and only have the state issue a Roommate License, and nothing more. After all, some platonic roommates depend very much on each other. And why should platonic roommates not be treated equally to lovers?

Take the state out of the marriage business, and then both kinds of couples - straight and gay - would be treated the same.

Why should three different kinds of voluntary associations be treated the same? Simply because someone wants them to be? If that someone is the people of the state, then that would be legal. But why should we do that?

And as Justice Chin considers whether he can craft a compromise with his fellow justices that would both uphold Prop 8 - and therefore the right of the people to amend the state constitution - and assert the right of gay people to be treated equally, he may find that the folks who cling hardest to the word "marriage" are the gay couples themselves. After all, what was the most sweeping part of the May 2008 decision Ming and his colleagues issued granting [brideless or groomless couples neutered state marriage licenses]? It was the idea that the word "marriage" itself is so strong that denying it to [same-sex] couples violates the most sacred rights enshrined in the state constitution, the right for all people to be treated with dignity and fairness.

This is a leap. What about single people or trios, or like I said, roommates? Are they not being treated with dignity and fairness because the state doesn't issue them marriage licenses? What about friends who aren't even roommates?

How can anyone who argues that state-licensed marriage is an unalienable right ever say it would be okay not to let anyone have access to that "right"? The False Compromise smacks of what some marriage defenders have said all along – this whole thing is more about tearing down the traditional family, including the esteeming of marriage – than it is about the rights of homosexual people.

There are reasons we, as a state, license marriage. Doing so is of benefit to the state. The kind of relationships that form marriage perpetuate society. We are under no obligation to treat different kinds of voluntary associations the same, no matter how much an activist group wants it that way. We should not forget that our soft-hearted acceptance of domestic partnerships has been met with scorn and a trouncing of our will.

Our Right Was Taken Away

This is another bad argument for marriage neutering.

In California, since the state Supreme Court ordered the neutering of state marriage licensing against the demonstrated will of the governed, and then refused to stay their decision until after an impending vote on a relevant constitutional amendment, same-sex couples were able to obtain state marriage licenses for several months. When the California Marriage Amendment was passed by voters, they were no longer able to obtain those licenses. So we have heard arguments that "our rights have been taken away" and that it isn't fair because "we used to have this right, but now we don't".

I like to make distinctions between actual natural rights and what is legal, allowed, or conducted under the auspices of the government. Not all freedoms are rights. Not all services a government offers are rights. The government performs services by the consent of the governed, and when the governed no longer consent, or correct a false consent made on their behalf, the service ceases.

Just because the government was passing out neutered marriage licenses doesn't mean it was a good thing or that there was an actual right to such things. State licensing is conducted on behalf of the people of a state. In California, we have partial direct democracy, in which we the people have retained some legislative abilities instead of allowing the elected legislatures to have all legislative power. Through our direct democratic process, we voted in 2000 via Proposition 22 to reaffirm marriage licensing as bride-groom only. The court decided there was a "right" for same-sex couples to obtain state-issued marriage licenses, but they overstepped their authority. Since when has a "right" applied to two people, but no more? Generally, two people have parental rights, but someone can even lose their "parental rights" by court order. How can there be a right to a state-issued license when it involves the consent of someone else? You may have a right to ask someone else for something, but that person has a right to say "no". Otherwise, it is a forcible intrusion on that person. In physical activity, we call that assault or rape.

While the Constitution of the United State of America does not enumerate all of the rights retained by the people, it does list such rights as freedom of speech and the right to bear arms. Yet, those rights to do nor force someone else to give us the use of a billboard, nor does it allow someone to yell "fire" in a crowded theater with immunity from prosecution. Gun owners can tell you plenty about how they were able to purchase and own and use certain arms in the past – but they are no longer allowed to do so legally. So even rights clearly enumerated in the Constitution have limits commonly recognized by courts.

This is not a strong argument for striking down the California Marriage Amendment (Proposition 8). It is akin to appealing to a court to issue you a diploma from the University of California (pick any one you like... Los Angeles, Berkeley, Davis) even though you've had no interest in attending classes at the university or performing course work. Instead, you have been very happy to study on your own terms with a professor in a warehouse. He refers to himself as a UC professor, but isn't. But unlike when you tried visiting a UC campus, you feel more comfortable in this warehouse, and you absolutely love your professor. And you believe you are learning. The court goes ahead and orders that you be given a UC diploma, and that others be able to obtain UC diplomas the same way. After all, those diplomas help in matters such as obtaining jobs with benefits and other things you want and enjoy.

Meanwhile, the people of California and vote in an amendment to the state constitution that restores traditional diploma-issuing when it comes to UC diplomas. If you want a UC diploma, you must meet the requirements. You don't have to go to a UC, but if you don't, you don't get a UC diploma.
You could argue that a "right" has been taken away from you. And you’d be wrong.

Neither the California Supreme Court nor the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals create or grant rights. No government does. A government can only recognize and protect rights, or by its actions, infringe upon rights. There is no right to a state-issued license. The people should retain ultimate authority in setting the licensing requirements.

Jerry Brown Signed the First DOMA

I'm reposting this entry I made early on in my contributions to The Opine Editorials.

The San Francisco Chronicle's political writer, Carla Marinucci, had an article discussing the fact that current California Governor General Jerry Brown, while Governor the first go-round, signed into law a bill codifying the legal definition of marriage as being a bride-groom pairing. There are lots of quotes defending Brown for his "progress" on the issue as he fights to remove California’s Marriage Amendment and prepares to run for Governor again. I found a quote in the article that stood out to me.

Veteran journalist Marty Nolan, who covered Brown for the Boston Globe in the 1970s and 1980s, said the defense represents Brown's longtime political mantra. "He's got a six-word answer - 'that was then, this is now,' " Nolan laughed. "It's an all-purpose shield."

This is an example of why we are supposed to be a nation of laws, not men, and we have a constitution and a representative republic. Opinions and votes can change over time, even if the truth and right and wrong do not. But we should not be held hostage to the whims of a single person. "That was then, this is now" is not a justification for a past or current action or policy, no more than saying "It's the twenty-first century." Yes, and the sky is blue. So? Was Brown wrong then? Is he wrong now? Why? Has a "right" to a state-licensed marriage for brideless or groomless couples emerged since the 1970s, or has it always existed and just not been recognized by flawed politicians? If the politicians were wrong then, what makes anyone so sure they are right now?

Neutering Marriage: Where We Are and What It Means

The Supreme Court of the United States of America heard arguments regarding two laws. It is possible that in June, they could issue a ruling that would invent a new federal right to get a state "marriage" license without a bride or without a groom, often called "gay marriage" or "same-sex marriage".

Less than fifteen years ago, no government in the world had neutered licensing to replace marriage. No President of the United States ever indicated a belief that a marriage exists without a bride or without a groom. President Bill Clinton, Democrat, had signed the federal Defense of Marriage Act into law, which had the support of many Democrats in Congress. Not a single great civil rights leader in history had ever called for a "right" to a marriage license without a bride or without a groom – not Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., not Susan B. Anthony, not Gandhi, nobody. None of the people who wrote and voted for the Constitution or the Amendments was ever on record as saying marriage was anything other than the uniting of a bride and groom. Running for President in 2008, Obama claimed to believe that marriage is between a man and woman, and he did not say that there was right to a state marriage license without a bride our groom. (He has partially changed his public position since then.) In Loving v. Virginia, which overturned scattered state bans in "interracial" marriage (which actually prevented freedom of association while Proposition 8 protected freedom of association), SCOTUS did not find that a brideless or groomless union was a marriage. In Lawrence v. Texas, which overturned laws against private homosexual sodomy, SCOTUS did not find that brideless or groomless union is a marriage. There are longstanding federal and state restrictions on marriage, including against polygamy and marriages between first cousins, both of which have a long worldwide history. (Some say that same-sex "marriage" should never be compared to polygamy or incest, and I agree – after all, the latter two have been historically and widely accepted as actual marriages.)

When SCOTUS heard the cases, only nine states and Washington, D.C. had neutered their licensing, something that was largely started by judicial activism with only one of those states doing it through a direct vote of the people that was initiated by the people rather than a judge or state legislature.

Most of the remaining states have constitutional amendments or state laws, many of them directly approved by voters, maintaining the bride+groom requirement in their licensing.

Yet here we are, facing the possibility that nine judges could force the neutering of state marriage licenses on all 50 states, even those where the people have recently voted to reaffirm the bride+groom requirement.

How did we get here?

I didn't follow the case involving the federal DOMA as closely as I did the case involving the California Marriage Amendment, which was adopted by voters through Proposition 8.

There was already a California law, signed by Governor Jerry Brown decades ago during an earlier term as Governor, stating the bride+groom requirement. In 2000, Californian voters directly passed Proposition 22, reaffirming this. California lawmakers passed law(s) creating state domestic partnerships in which same-sex couples (these partnerships were denied – discrimination! - to both-sexes couples unless at least one of them was a seasoned citizen of a certain age) would be treated by state and local governments exactly the same as if they were a married couple. Striking down Prop 8 did not give same-sex couples any additional "rights".

Then the Leftist marriage neutering advocates, including people who were sworn to uphold and enforce the law, decided to thumb their nose at the law by "marrying" brideless and groomless couples and then suing for recognition as marriage. That wound its way through the state courts.

Meanwhile, the voters of California decided to strengthen the bride+groom requirement by placing on the ballot a measure what would make it part of the state constitution. As that was heading for the ballot, the California Supreme Court ordered the neutering of the state's marriage licenses. Later that year (2008), California voters voted for Obama AND they adopted Proposition 8 to restore the bride+groom requirement, placing it in the state constitution.. For many months, long-term (and short term, for that matter) same-sex couples could have obtained "marriage" licenses, and thousands did. Snoozers were losers.

Of course, the California Marriage Amendment was challenged in court by marriage neutering advocates, and so it went to the California Supreme Court, then into the federal courts.

You can read all about this at these links to The Opine Editorials, where we covered it as it was happening:

On the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on Proposition 8

On the Proposition 8 Trial

On the California Marriage Amendment

On Judge Walker - the federal judge who heard the federal trial over Proposition 8/California Marriage Amendment but did not disclose he stood to immediately and personally benefit from the results.)

(Click on the tags at The Opine Editorials and here on this blog for more on these subjects.)

It is possible SCOTUS may leave this matter up to the individual states, or may order states with "same as marriage" domestic partnerships, like California, to neuter their marriage licensing. There could be some other rulings other than a sweeping one.

If SCOTUS instead invents a "right" for brideless or groomless pairings to get a state marriage license regardless the state law, that will establish these can-of-worm precedents (because remember, we’re not talking about personal freedom, private behavior, and freedom of association, but rather demanding a state-issued license):

1) Minorities that are only distinguishable by their voluntary behavior or unverifiable claims about themselves will be specially-protected classes. Some might ask how this is different from protecting religious groups, but freedom of religion is specifically listed in the Constitution. Those who are in the minority in their sex-like practices will now be specially protected classes. What if someone finds it advantageous in a lawsuit to claim they are gay, even though there is no evidence they are actually homosexual? We certainly can't ask for proof, can we?

2) There will be a right to state-issued licenses and those licenses have to be recognized in all states. That should get very interesting when it comes to restrictions placed on the Second Amendment right to bear arms, or driver's licenses for people who refuse to actually take the driving test due to personal characteristics present since birth.

3) The equal protection principle applies not only to individuals, but to pairings (or groups) not similarly situated. If I had a business partnership, I'd sue for the same protections afforded to marriages (for example, not being compelled to testify against each other in court) and nonprofits.

4) Certain different behaviors must be treated by government as though they were the same. (Yes, a woman socially and sexually uniting with a man is behavior demonstrably different than a woman joining with a woman.)

5) Courts/governments have the authority to forcefully redefine organic institutions established long before the existince of those courts/governments.


Here's a basic argument against neutering marriage that is not religion-based.
1) Men and women are different. Even most of the people who try to deny this demonstrate that they understand this to be true. After all, if men and women were not different, all, or at least three, of the terms in "LGBT" would have no meaning.

2) The pairing of a man and a woman is different than the pairing of two men or two women. It is the only kind of pairing that is able to naturally produce new citizens (who, unlike the adults, do not consent to the relationship), even if not all do. This alone is enough to give the state more interest in the pairing of a man and a woman.

3) Men and women are different in personal relationships. If that difference matters enough to someone in picking a lover, how can it not matter when it comes to the parent-child relationship?

4) State licensing of bride+groom pairings provides children with a role model, guardian, and bonding partner from each of the two sexes that comprise all of society, legally bound to each other as well as the children; generally, this is good for children.

5) It is Constitutional, moral, common, and necessary to treat different kinds of relationships differently. Since all that is needed to enforce this requirement for a STATE-ISSUED license is a pair of STATE-ISSUED birth certificates, it can be done objectively and with impartiality to sexual orientation and without violating anyone's privacy.

6) One need not believe homosexual behavior, relationships, or people to be harmful, sinful, or inferior to accept any or all of #1-5. Indeed, there are people who identify as LBGT who agree with this argument.


Although marriage neutering advocates equate their campaign to civil rights for African-Americans, the comparison is insulting. Homosexual people certainly can't be described as a powerless minority akin to how African-Americans were 50-60 years ago, given how many already serve in elected and appointed positions at all levels of government, how they are treated throughout academia, their overrepresentation and positive portrayals in media, their socioeconomic status, widespread support by business including major corporations, so on and so forth. Unlike African-Americans, homosexual people were not taken from their homeland by force, systematically enslaved and denied status as human beings, systematically segregated by force of law, tortured and lynched by the thousands in festive events attended in broad daylight by entire towns (including children), denied their right to vote, etc.

Even so, heterosexuals would have just as much access to licensing a same-sex union as "marriage" as homosexual people, so how can it be about helping a suspect class?

Marriage neutering advocates are claiming they have unstoppable, growing momentum, and a clear majority of popular support with inevitable victory among voters. How can that be if they are a powerless minority subject to widespread, systematic animus? Which is it? Californians broadly supported homosexual people having the same rights as everyone else and pet legislative causes, but at the same time, voted to affirm the bride+groom requirement.

Clearly, we are talking about treating different voluntary behaviors differently. This is not the same thing as simply being able to look at someone and know they are female, or black, or an Orthodox Jew. We are told over and over again that we can't know whether someone is heterosexual or homosexual just be looking at them.

Many people who support retaining the bride+groom requirement in state marriage licensing have no animus for homosexual people or homosexual behavior. Some of them identify as LGBT themselves.

Other people who one claimed a gay or lesbian identity now live as heterosexual or claim to be heterosexual. I’ve never seen an African-American become a white guy. This is apples and oranges.

If SCOTUS does invent that new right, it will not be the end of what the fascists behind the marriage neutering movement will do. It will just be the beginning. Nobody will be allowed to hold up marriage as a bride+groom institution, such as in educational lesson plans. Other limitations on marriage licensing will be attacked, and marriage may no longer be recognized at all by government. Churches and synagogues who believe that marriage unites a bride and groom will be attacked. We’ve already seen indications of this before. Individuals will not be immune, either.

Will SCOTUS uphold the rights of California's voters? Or will it set dangerous new precedents? Do the people have a government, or are we all property of the government?

The Race Card and Neutering Marriage

Marriage neutering advocates frequently cite prohibitions in the past against "interracial"* marriage as why African-Americans, judges, an all who care about civil rights should support the neutering of marriage laws and the replacement of marriage with a counterfeit. The claim goes that because African-Americans in some parts of the country in the past could not marry white people, they should identify with the inability for brideless pair of a groomless pair to get a "marriage" license, and they should fight for marriage neutering.

When one takes a closer look at the situation, though, if African-Americans, as a group, have something with which to identify in this case, it is actually the denial of their voting rights. More African-Americans were denied their voting rights than were ever prevented from marrying a white person.

For example, if the pollsters are to be believed, African-Americans, as a classification, strongly supported California's Prop 22 and subsequent Prop 8, which was adopted as a state constitutional amendment. And yet their votes were cast aside by courts based on a made-up "right" and based on a demand to treat different kinds of voluntary associations as though they are the same. In other words, they were denied their voting rights in favor of imaginary rights demanded by an even smaller minority.

"Interracial" marriage has been readily recognized to be marriage by every major religion (though not all sects) all throughout history around the world. Some places in this country banned it (a true ban, as I explain below... not simply "refusing to license"). Notice that the people who passed those laws did not also set up laws to ban same-sex couples from getting married – because such a thing had never been recognized in the first place. Indeed, in the case that shot down bans on interracial marriage – Loving v. Virginia, no mention is made of same-sex couples. Same-sex "marriage" is a modern invention modeled after marriage - which was not created by the state but merely recognized by the state - but missing the key element in marriage that is of the most interest to society. This modern invention is designed for the appropriation of government benefits (already provided to domestic partners in California and other places) and public affirmation (which should be up to the public).

If marriage is about forming a microcosm of society for the sake of perpetuating it – uniting both sexes that comprise all of society, giving children both a mother and a father legally bound to each other and to them, then "interracial" marriage is the same kind of voluntary association as any other marriage. However, two men or two women, of any race, are not. Skin color is incidental to marriage, while sex is inherent to it.  Thus, the comparison to same-sex "marriage" doesn’t hold up. "Interracial" marriage is how we got new citizens like Tiger Woods. Who has ever been conceived by sodomy between two men?

Today, people are able to live their lives together without a marriage license, while in the past, property owners and employers could refuse to deal with people who were "shacking up" and cohabitation could be prosecuted. Thus, a ban on interracial marriage was a form of segregation and a denial of the freedom of association. It was truly a ban. Now, people are free to cohabitate without social or legal repercussions, and keeping the bride+groom requirement in state marriage licensing and federal law will not keep them from doing so.

Having had wrong laws regarding marriage licensing in the past does not mean that all laws regarding marriage licensing are wrong. Most people calling for marriage neutering are in favor of some form of discrimination themselves when it comes to issuing marriage licenses. Everyone involved wants some form of discrimination, such as restrictions on the number of spouses, how closely related the spouses can be, and the minimum age to to marry.

Must a brideless or groomless sex-segregating couple be treated the same as a couple integrating and uniting  both of the sexes? Why, when so many laws treat different kinds of voluntarily associations differently?

In addition to rejecting the attempt to confuse the issue with a legitimate civil rights fight from the past, the African-American community should speak up in defense of their voting rights, and judges should recognize that marriage licenses are issued on behalf of the people of a state, and the people have the power to require that marriage be integrationist rather than segregationist.

*I maintain that we are all one race – human, and this “interracial” is an artificial term in this case, in my opinion.
(I originally posted this in a slightly different form as "The Race Card and Prop 8" on my previous blog.)

Affirming Marriage Is Not Hateful

In July of 2008, the Pink Lady (known to some as the Los Angeles Times, tried to convince readers that Proposition 8 was doomed at the ballot box. Of course, it went on to be approved in November that year, adding the California Marriage Amendment to the state constitution.

The Los Angeles Times tried to convince us that since what they see as the "in-crowd" supports marriage neutering and that those of us who honor the bride+groom construct should give up. Staff writers Jessica Garrison and Dan Morain reported. [NOTE: They now have a paywall, so free clicks are limited.]

A bare majority of California voters would continue to allow gay marriage, according to a new poll released Friday.

Yet again, that was extremely sloppy language used. Proposition 8 RESTORED bride-groom marriage licensing to the State of California. "Gay marriage" was not banned (and neither were round squares). Anyone, regardless of sexual orientation, could "marry" someone of the same sex in ceremonies, form legal partnerships, commit to each other, live with each other, etc. Passing Proposition 8 did not send the Gestapo (or, as one dispicable ad depicted, Mormon missionairies) into Metropolitan churches and homes and banquet halls to break up "gay marriages".

The Right to Vote

In early 2009, there was an entry on the Los Angeles Times blog [NOTE: The Pink Lady now has a paywall, that last I checked, kicked in after so many hits from you per month] about the LDS church contributions supporting the California Marriage Amendment. Of course, the entry prompted a bunch of the usual comments.  I'm picking out one to analyze here.
"scotch9" wrote on January 31, 2009 at 03:22 PM:

It would seem that the right wing conseravtive movement wants America to adopt a Middle easrten Style Government where religion dictates the thoughts and actions of people.

Not all right wing conservatives are traditionally religious. But I think he means the "religious right", and no, major personalities in the religious right do NOT want a theocracy. Actually, they (the Christian ones, anyway) await a benevolent dictatorship with the return of Christ, but until then they champion the Constitution.

For 233 years we have fought aganst this all around the world.

No, we haven't. We have fought tyranny in various ways, and that the California Supreme Court did by ordering the neutering of marriage licenses was tyrannical.

I know some are uncomfortable with same sex relationships. So what.

That's not the issue here (although you think state-issued marriage licenses mean affirmation). The issue here is who gets to decide state licensing requirements? A handful of people, or the voting citizenry?
The writer then goes on to compare present-day conservatives with Tories from the time of the American Revolution, defenders of American slavery, opponents of women's suffrage, segregationists, and Jim Crow proponents, before going on to this gem:

We were even attacked on Septemeber 11, 2001 by right wing conservative religious types screaming glory to the god they say is suprior to the God these American Chistains rage for, and they say,makes them superior to gay persons. These poeple seek to devide, inspire violence, murder, hate and create evil.

The hijackers were all male, too, so I guess all men are just like them.

They know all about all, just ask them.

Well if you aren't confident that you know anything, then why should anyone else listen to your opinion?

It is entirely possible that "conservatives" have been wrong on many things, but are right about this thing.

This is what people like me want: Limited, constitutional government. I don't want to come into your home using the force of law and tell you how to live. But that also means you can't come to me and take something from me without my approval. So if you want to live with someone of the same sex, exchange vows and jewelry and names with them, have a party, go on vacation together, and all of that, you are free to do so.  But when you march on down to a building that is paid for by the taxpayers, and ask a public servant to issue you a state marriage license on behalf of the people of California, then the people of California, including me, have a right to say "no" if you don't meet the requirements, as long as the requirements are clear and applied equally. And that's exactly what we do. Men and women can get marriage licenses, regardless of sexual orientation. Women are not excluded. Homosexuals are not excluded.

I also have the right to practice my religion and vote as I choose.

Shall We Vote on Your Marriage Now?

That, or some variation of that, was used by some protestors against California's marriage amendment, voted in as Proposition 8, and has been used ever since in the USA and around the world regarding disputes about neutering marriage. It is used by demonstrators in person and online and in print.
They are trying to stir sympathy, asking you to place yourself in their shoes. But what is the logical argument, if any, being made? It seems to be "You voted against licensing my relationship as marriage, and that hurts because I want my relationship to be licensed as marriage."
I'm sure I’ll be corrected if I am wrong.
We've all wanted something, at sometime in our lives, that was wrong, or that wasn't ours to have, or wasn't even possible. That we want something doesn't mean we have a right to have it. It still isn't a right even if a bunch of us want it. It still isn't a right even if a court one day says it is. Wanting something doesn't mean it is right that you get it, or that any means used to get it are right.
Marriage has existed for all of human history. Our state, our current governments, did not create it. It recognizes it and has chosen to license it. There is a reason that the state is involved in marriage licensing, and it isn't because anyone has a right to a marriage license. It isn't so that the state can reward two people for finding love, mutual attraction, or good times together. There is a reason marriage throughout history has united the sexes, and that state licensing of marriage has reflected that.
And those reasons have nothing to do with stopping anyone from engaging in same-sex partnering or physical activity, or punishing people for having same-sex attractions, or trying to make such people feel bad. It does not prevent same-sex couples from living together, committing to each other, forming legal relationships, or considering themselves married or being treated by others as married.
As I've said many times, there is no right to a state-issued license against the demonstrated will of the state voters. True rights do not obligate others without their consent, unless a crime has been committed. When you ask someone (the people of California, for example) for something (a marriage license), they have the right to say "no".  We have the freedom of speech. It is even enumerated in the Constitution. But I do not have a right to force you to read this blog or listen to what I have to say – because that would obligate you without your consent.
Marriage defenders are not the people who took this matter to the courts. In doing so, same-sex partners were already subjecting their marriages to a vote – a vote by the judges. Since our government rules through the consent of the governed, marriage licensing stipulations fall under our authority. Even with equal access/protection and nondiscrimination laws, there is no compelling reason for a court to force neutered marriage licensing, because there is equal access to traditional marriage licenses for both men and women of any sexual orientation. That someone does not want to get that license under current terms does not compel a change. That I prefer to grow and eat vegetables instead of fish does not mean that something is wrong with fishing licenses, even if people will mount large catches on their wall and receive praise, while nobody cares as much that I grow tasty vegetables.
Now given that marriage licensing is up to the people of the state, what about that original question?  What if people voted to change marriage licensing so that only same-sex couples could get them?  I wouldn't be happy about it, but it wouldn't stop me from being married to my wife. I would still be happy with her, I would still live my life married to her, whether or not the state licensed it. That is because my marriage is based on biological fact and it is part of a historical tradition and is about our commitment to each other before God.
There is nothing stopping anyone from circulating a petition to change marriage licensing in such a way. So far, there has been ONE state where someone neutered marriage licensing by circulating a petition to get in on on the ballot, getting it on the ballot, and the voters approving it. So if they get enough signatures, it will get on the ballot. If the ballot measure gets enough votes, it will pass.  So if you want to vote on my marriage, I say... go for it. My happiness does not depend on what you think of my marriage.