Archives

Tuesday, May 26, 2009

400-408Ron Prentice, Executive Director of the California Family Council (californiafamily.org) on today's 6-1 California Supreme Court ruling allowing Prop 8 to stand and the 18,000 gay couples who married to remain wed.

The California Supreme Court upheld a voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage Tuesday, but it also decided that the estimated 18,000 gay couples who tied the knot before the law took effect will stay wed…The 6-1 decision written by Chief Justice Ron George rejected an argument by gay rights activists that the ban revised the California Constitution's equal protection clause to such a dramatic degree that it first needed the Legislature's approval.
The court said the Californians have a right, through the ballot box, to change their constitution.  "In a sense, petitioners' and the attorney general's complaint is that it is just too easy to amend the California Constitution through the initiative process. But it is not a proper function of this court to curtail that process; we are constitutionally bound to uphold it," the ruling said.  The justices said the 136-page majority ruling does not speak to whether they agree with Proposition 8 or "believe it should be a part of the California Constitution."  They said they were "limited to interpreting and applying the principles and rules embodied in the California Constitution, setting aside our own personal beliefs and values."

The state Supreme Court had ruled last May that it was unconstitutional to deny gay couples the right to wed. Many same-sex couples had rushed to get married before the November vote on Proposition 8, fearing it could be passed. When it was, gay rights activists went back to the court arguing that the ban was improperly put to voters and amounted to a revision—which required legislative approval—not an amendment.  That was the issue justices decided Tuesday.  "After comparing this initiative measure to the many other constitutional changes that have been reviewed and evaluated in numerous prior decisions of this court, we conclude Proposition 8 constitutes a constitutional amendment rather than a constitutional revision," the ruling said.

Family Research Council President Tony Perkins today praised the California Supreme Court's decision to uphold democracy and reject efforts to strip the right of the people to amend the state's Constitution to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

"Over one million Californians signed petitions to place Proposition 8 on the ballot and over seven million voters approved the measure on Election Day. California's Constitution gives its citizens the right of self-governance and we are pleased that the court resisted demands to strip the right of the people to amend the state constitution. Even this widely-recognized liberal court understands that overturning Proposition 8 would represent a repudiation of the state Constitution it is sworn to uphold.

"Unfortunately, the Court chose to ignore the plain meaning of Proposition 8 and will force state recognition of same-sex 'marriage' licenses issued last year. The Court's recognition of these 'marriages' clearly seeds the ground for a possible legal battle before the U.S. Supreme Court.  At every opportunity, the people of California have voted to protect marriage because they recognize the far reaching consequences that redefining marriage will have for children, the family, religious liberties, businesses and every facet of American society. Today's decision should encourage pro-family activists not only in California but across the country. Marriage redefinition is not inevitable unless advocates of the family stand aside and allow it to happen."

California voters won a major victory today as the California Supreme Court announced its decision to uphold Proposition 8 and leave the definition of traditional marriage in California's constitution as decided by voters in the November, 2008 election.

Andrew Pugno, General Counsel of ProtectMarriage.com -- the official proponents of Prop. 8 -- said the Court's ruling is a great victory for the people of California and for the millions of supporters of traditional marriage.  "We commend the California Supreme Court for upholding the right of the people to define marriage in our constitution," said Pugno. "The Court recognized that the power to amend the constitution ultimately belongs to the people. We are very grateful to the Court for agreeing with the arguments we presented in our briefs and in oral argument last March. For the second time now, the people have decided that marriage is reserved for a man and a woman and the Court has appropriately respected their decision."

Over 7 million people voted in favor of Proposition 8 last November. It won by a margin of 600,000 votes and achieved roughly the same percentage of support as President Barack Obama did nationally. Post election surveys show that Californians continue to support traditional marriage. If anything, support for gay marriage has declined while support for traditional marriage has increased.

Today's ruling closes the door on the latest challenges to the state's election process in an ongoing effort to legalize same-sex marriage in California. If gay activists wish to legalize same-sex marriage now, they will have to go to the people and seek their permission -- something they have never done. Pugno promised that any future efforts to repeal Prop. 8 will be vigorously contested. ProtectMarriage.com will also vigorously oppose any further efforts in the state and federal courts to invalidate or weaken Prop 8.

According to Ron Prentice, Chairman of the ProtectMarriage.com Executive Committee, the Committee will now shift its focus on the long-term goal of continuing to protect marriage and strengthen family values.  "We will now turn our attention to public education and outreach so that citizens come to better understand and appreciate the many benefits that traditional marriage provides for society and our families," said Prentice. "The institution of marriage as we have always understood it has served California and our broader society since the nation was founded. We look forward to working with young people, churches, ethnic communities and all of California with an ongoing discussion about the benefits of traditional marriage."

413-423Jack Hibbs, senior pastor at Calvary Chapel Chino Hills (calvarycch.org), on today's 6-1 California Supreme Court ruling allowing Prop 8 to stand and the 18,000 gay couples who married to remain wed.

428-437Jim Garlow, pastor of Skyline Church in San Diego (skylinechurch.org), and one of the key leaders of the Yes on 8 campaign (protectmarriage.com), on today's 6-1 California Supreme Court ruling allowing Prop 8 to stand and the 18,000 gay couples who married to remain wed.

443-452 – • Fox News (5/26/09) Sotomayor nominated to high court, first Hispanic.


• Ed Morrissey (5/26/09) Sonia Sotomayor's greatest hits.
"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion [as a judge] than a white male who hasn't lived that life." — Judge Sonia Sotomayor, in her Judge Mario G. Olmos Law and Cultural Diversity Lecture at the University of California (Berkeley) School of Law in 2001.


(:35) Sonia Sotomayor at Duke in 2005, "Um, all of the legal defense funds out there, um, they're looking for people with court of appeals experience, because court of appeals is where policy is made. And I know, I know this is on tape and I should never say that because we don't make law, I know. Um, um — [laughter] — I know. I'm not promoting it, I'm not advocating it, and, I'm … you know. [laughter]."

• Jeffrey Rosen, TNR (5/8/09) More Sotomayor: Rosen responds to his critics.

458-508Wesley J. Smith, (wesleyjsmith.com) bioethicist and senior fellow at the Discovery Institute (discovery.org), and author of The Consumer's Guide to a Brave New World, on the new Al Pacino movie for HBO about Jack Kevorkian entitled "You Don't Know Jack," and a strange illness called Body Integrity Identity Disorder that afflicts people to want to become amputees.

512-523Wesley J. Smith.

528-538Jerry Bowyer, economist, nationally-syndicated columnist, and CNBC contributor (jerrybowyer.com), on the news of the day.

• Holman Jenkins, WSJ's Political Diary (5/26/09) Government of the UAW, by the UAW, for the UAW.
When a company is in bankruptcy, laid-off workers can usually consider themselves lucky if their last paychecks clear. Forget any special severance benefits. Here's one more sign that a Detroit auto bankruptcy is something astonishing and new under the sun.

Chrysler may have shut down all its plants and ceased producing cars and is about to be broken up and sold to Fiat. But layoffs are still strictly voluntary for UAW members. On the contrary, the inducements have only gotten richer under bankruptcy. Before Chrysler got terminally ill and the taxpayer had to take over, the going price was $75,000 for a worker to surrender his job. With federal bailout money in play, Chrysler has upped the buyout price to $110,000 plus a $25,000 voucher for a new car.

•• This is a marvelous precedent in bankruptcy, likely never seen before. Chrysler's dealers, bondholders, white-collar workers and white-collar retirees have all found to their abiding injury that, for them, bankruptcy is still bankruptcy. Not for the UAW, one group for which the landing just keeps getting softer and softer. Bankruptcy courts once existed as a fundamental underpinning of our system of property rights, making sure claimants to a failed company got their due. In the case of the Detroit autos, bankruptcy has become a political venue for infusing auto makers with taxpayer money for the benefit of the administration's UAW allies, who spent $55 million in the last election cycle supporting Mr. Obama and his party.

Mr. Obama today picked someone else, but an inspired notion from Michigan voters was a new Detroit News poll in which a majority backed Gov. Jennifer Granholm for the Supreme Court. Ms. Granholm has been a tireless supporter of Operation Bail-Out-the-UAW, which Mr. Obama may well have to defend all the way to the highest court. He may yet wish he had stacked the court with Ms. Granholm.


My Summary:
 Under Obama's plan for the new Government Motors, the total stake by all three owners will be $64 billion, broken down this way.  Bondholders will have paid $27.2 billion (42% of the total) and get merely a 10% ownership stake.  The UAW will contribute $10 billion (15.6% of the total) and get a 39% ownership stake.  The Federal Government will contribute $27 billion (42% of the total) and get a 51% ownership stake.
How can the bondholders contribute 42% and get just 10% ownership?
How can the UAW contribute 16% and get 39%?
How can Obama contribute 42% and get 51%?
The answer?  Obama is giving – not selling – GM to the UAW.  Obama and the UAW will own 90% of the new Government Motors.  This is nationalization of a major industry.  Get ready, more is coming.

544-554Jerry Bowyer, economist, nationally-syndicated columnist, and CNBC contributor (jerrybowyer.com).

558-608Francis Chan, pastor of Cornerstone Church in Simi Valley (cornerstonesimi.com), author of Crazy Love: Overwhelmed by a Relentless God (crazylovebook.com).  Francis lays out their plan to start house churches this summer.

612-623 Francis Chan

628-638Frank Turek, founder of crossexamined.org (that has tons of great resources and videos), and author of Correct, Not Politically Correct: How Same-Sex Marriage Hurts Everyone and I Don't Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist.

• NRO Editors (5/26/09) Born Unequal. 

My Summary:  The out-of-wedlock birth rate is 40% overall, but 72% for blacks, 51% for Hispanics, and 28% for non-Hispanic whites.  However, Charles Murray at AEI has broken down the non-Hispanic white rate of 28% further, and found the out-of-wedlock birth rate for poor whites is 70%, for working-class whites 40%, for middle-class whites 20%, and for upper-class whites 5%. 

They conclude, "During the Bush years, liberals often attributed rising inequality to Republican economic measures. In fact, the growth of inequality since the early 1980s can be explained by structural changes in both the U.S. economy and American society. The most important social shift has been the deterioration of middle- and lower-income families. Over the long term, strengthening those families is the best way to reduce inequality."


(:35) Sonia Sotomayor at Duke in 2005, "Um, all of the legal defense funds out there, um, they're looking for people with court of appeals experience, because court of appeals is where policy is made. And I know, I know this is on tape and I should never say that because we don't make law, I know. Um, um — [laughter] — I know. I'm not promoting it, I'm not advocating it, and, I'm … you know. [laughter]."

644-652Frank Turek

657-700I share a little of my testimony as a former atheist challenged to disprove Christianity.


701 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 550
Glendale, CA 91203
Office (818) 956-5552
Frank's Assistant Nate Hanson nate@kkla.com
Get Podcasts here



701 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 550
Glendale, CA 91203
Office (818) 956-5552
Frank's Assistant Nate Hanson nate@kkla.com
Get Podcasts here