AB 205 Foes Make Their Case In California Court Of Appeals

Friday afternoon I had a chance to sit in as attorneys argued the constitutionality of AB 205 before the appeals court here in Sacramento. AB 205 is the legislation authored by Jackie Goldberg (D), which essentially gave almost all of the rights reserved for married couples to domestic partners. This basically created same sex marriage in California; without calling it marriage. (Story Here)

The primary issue being debated was whether or Proposition 22, The Defense of Marriage Act passed in 2000 protected marriage in name only or in fact also included the rights and responsibilities traditionally tied to marriage.

"The voters of the state are entitled to get what they voted on. No more and no less," said Deputy Attorney General Kathleen Lynch in defense of the domestic partners law. "How would a voter know they were going to vote on more?"

But what was not reported was a key argument presented by Robert Tyler, attorney for the Proposition 22 Legal Defense and Education Fund. He pointed out that California case law already existed supporting their position that marriage is not merely a status and cannot be separated from the rights and responsibilities traditionally tied to it.

When a member of the three judge panel questioned Deputy AG Lynch on this fact, her only response was that the case law was “Outdated”. These are decisions that were made as early as 1981 and as late as 1985. If they believe that rulings that are less than 20 years-old are archaic, it is easy to see why they don’t support traditional marriage. They probably consider it “Outdated” as well, since it does date back to the beginning of time.

It is crucial that we let these judges know that we are tired of them usurping the will of the people by legislating from the bench. JudgeRecall.com is a group of Sacramento voters who are sending just such a message to Sacramento Superior Court Judge Loren McMaster. He is the judge who chose to ignore established case law in his support of AB 205.

If you want to send a message to out of control judges that you have had enough, the recall of Judge McMaster would be a great way to do so.

Craig DeLuz

Visit The Home of Uncommon Sense…
www.craigdeluz.com

The Show Will Go On!

Religious freedom is under attack at every turn. And where we choose to stand up, we are winning the battle. At Corning Union High School, students stood up for their right to share their faith during a fine arts festival put on by the school.

The BREAD Club of Corning High wanted to perform a human video depicting the crucifixion of Jesus Christ during the school’s 15th Annual Fine Arts Festival. (See Story Here)

The controversy erupted after the club presented a dramatic presentation during the tryouts for the festival. CHS Principal Bruce Cole said afterward he was concerned about the subject content because it depicted the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ in a graphic way.

Cole told the group that the performance had been disqualified because the end of the play stressed the importance of others taking on religious beliefs, which could be taken as proselytizing. He said that would not be appropriate for a public school setting before a captive audience.

The great news is that the students, local pastors and the community as a whole rallied around these students. And together, they won a great victory for religious freedom. But I think it is important to note a few details about this matter for future consideration.

First of all, this was NOT a case of an “anti-God” public school administrator trying to silence Christians. Mr. Cole was simply acting out of ignorance. Ignorance of an area of law of which, most us have little understanding. This was an opportunity for him, the school board and the community to develop a better understanding of their rights in respect to expressing their religious believes.

And Secondly, this school board was looking for a way to allow the students exercise their free speech rights, while at the same time, not opening the school district up to a lawsuit. This just goes to demonstrate the complex situation that many who work in the public school system must face. But in the end, all that was needed for the principle and the school board to make the right decision was the right information. I take my hat off to them for choosing to protect the rights of their students.

I also believe that honor is due to the students, pastors and community members who stood up and had their voices heard; because there were others (including Christians) who did not want them to fight for their rights.

Brad Martin of Corning, however, warned those fighting for their rights that the consequences may equal them winning a battle but losing a war.

"The process of threatening the school, in and of itself, has already created a defensive posture towards the message that Christians are attempting to bring to the school," Martin said. "You may win the right to make a presentation, but to an empty auditorium, in as much as no one will want to hear the message of the presentation."

My message to Mr. Martin and those who think that we should not stand up for our rights is a quote by Edmund Burke:

“All that is necessary for evil to triumph, is for good men to do nothing.”

(Click Pic For More)

Craig DeLuz

Visit The Home of Uncommon Sense…
www.craigdeluz.com

CUHS Board Allows Passion Play

The students didn't come to the meeting without some impressive allies including a Craig Deluz who came representing state Assemblymen Tim Leslie and Doug LaMalfa. He also noted that his office had been in contact with state Sen. Sam Aanestad who had asked him to keep him informed of the situation.

"This is a real opportunity for the board to gain some real information that is really not understood about the law that protects students rights," said Deluz. "In this case on behalf of our offices, I would urge you to protect the students' rights to freedom of speech and save yourself from any potential lawsuit. This is your right to do as a board and you should make your voice heard to the principal."

(Click Here for More)

The Governor Says "I don't Believe in Gay Marriage."

While it probably isn’t the strong moral stand that most of us social conservatives would like to see from the governor, at least he is standing up for the vote of the people.

MSNBC’s Hardball televised an interview with the Governor at Stanford University yesterday where Schwarzenegger declared:

I go by what the people have voted, which was Proposition 22.

He later stated:

I don‘t believe in gay marriage. I believe in partnership, domestic partnership.

This is not exactly where many of us would like to see the Governor, but it represents the political tight rope that many republicans are walking these days. Basically, they support protecting marriage in name only.

When asked about putting a constitutional amendment on the California ballot, the Governor stated:

Well, they did. The people have voted already on that issue. And we can take it back. If people are not happy with that, they can put another initiative...

I agree! If the voters of California want to change the definition of marriage, then they should put it to a vote. But that is not how the same-sex marriage advocates work. They know that everywhere same-sex marriage has been put before the voters, it has failed. This is why they have chosen to got through the liberal court system.

This may force the governor into an interesting quandary. Does he believe more in the will of the people or the will of the courts? Unfortunaely, he did indicate that he would not be willing to buck the California Supreme Court, should they decide to declare laws protecting traditional marriage as unconstitutional.

Whatever the Supreme Court, whatever the Supreme Court decides, that‘s exactly what I will stay with.

It will be interesting to see what happens....

Craig DeLuz

Visit The Home of Uncommon Sense…
www.craigdeluz.com

Student Fights Teaching of Communism on Campus

Instructors at Santa Rosa Junior College are in an uproar because of student protests against the propagation of communism in the classroom.

I want to know why the instructors aren't protesting with them.

The Santa Rosa Press Democrat Reports:

Santa Rosa Junior College's oak-studded campus is aflame with controversy triggered by the anonymous posting of red stars and a reference to communist indoctrination on 10 faculty office doors.

Instructors quickly saw the action as a threat to academic freedom, but the student who claimed credit for the protest said it was about left-leaning bias in the lecture hall.

But what was interesting about this protest was what accompanied the stars.

The stars, which unnerved some instructors, were accompanied by a copy of a state Education Code section prohibiting the teaching of communism with the "intent to indoctrinate" students.

Instructors have vowed to have the State Education Code changed. But it doesn’t say that communism can’t be taught. It simply prohibits “the teaching of communism with the ‘intent to indoctrinate’ students.” Unless they intend to indoctrinate these students with communist propaganda for the purpose of making them communists, there is no need to change the law.

But this is not what they are arguing! They are not trying to defend the content of what they wish to teach, They are trying to protect the intent behind what they teach. “What intent?” you ask?

The article quotes philosophy instructor, George Freund, “The Advocacy of Communism”

But hey… There’s not left wing bias on college campuses? Yeah Right!

Someone Get this student a medal!


(Click Pic For More)

Craig DeLuz

Visit The Home of Uncommon Sense…
www.craigdeluz.com

Sacramento's ABM Treaty "Anyone But Matsui!"

"Republicans and Democrats alike are up in arms that the “Democratic machine” has all but handed the late Congressman Bob Matsui’s seat to his widow, Doris Matsui. That’s why I call on District 5 voters--Republican, Democrat, Green and independent--to agree to our own ABM treaty: Anyone but Matsui!"

(Click Here for More)

Sacramento's ABM Treaty "Anyone But Matsui"

The Sacramento News and Review saw fit to publish my commentary on the sad state the 5th Congressional District race is. I think they agree that DC Democrats have no place selecting our representatives.

Too bad the Sacramento Bee did not see fit to stand up to the establishment as well. (But I guess that is a little difficult when you are part of the establishment.) They admit that Matsui has ethical issues:

“… Matsui disclosed her past partnerships with real estate developer Angelo Tsakopoulos. These partnerships represented a serious lapse of judgment, especially since Tsakopoulos has sometimes contacted Congress for help on regulatory relief and other matters.”

The continue on to point out that her effectiveness could be compromised because she has lost touch with Sacramento:

“she will need to demonstrate a connection to Sacramento, a place where she hasn't lived full-time for many years.”

This lame endorsement by the Bee is no surprise to those who follow their liberal leaning endorsement practices. If one looks at the major races (Sacramento City Council, County Supervisor on up) an interesting pattern starts to immerge.

In a race that is in a moderate to Democrat district, they will endorse the Democrat frontrunner (no matter how poor a candidate he/she may be) over the Republican frontrunner (no matter how good a candidate he/she.) And in a Republican leaning district, they tend to choose the more liberal of the two GOP candidates. That is unless the conservative is a major frontrunner or an incumbent.

I know that I am not the only one who has noticed this trend. And the Sacramento Bee refused to admit that the ideological (liberal ideology) bent of their editorial staff, is clouding their judgment in the endorsement process.

The fact is, they are just at out of touch with Sacramento as Doris Matusi. But what makes them worse is that have been here, in town. But I guess one’s perspective isn’t exactly the same from the Ivory Tower.

(Click Pic For More)

Craig DeLuz

Visit The Home of Uncommon Sense…
www.craigdeluz.com

The Game Made Me Do It!!!!

The desire to shift responsibility from the criminal to society has finally gone too far.

KOMO 1000 reports:

House Bill 2178 proposes to hold the makers and sellers of violent video games liable if someone under 17 years old commits a crime, due in any part, to playing the game.

The article goes on to state:

"If you sit up and watch this and play these games over and over again... it seems that this is alright to walk up and hit a police officer over the head with a bat," Hanson said.

What message are we sending to our youth when we allow them off the hook by blaming the video games for their actions? This goes right along with blaming fast food companies for people getting fat from eating their food.

I wonder when we as a society will get tired of passing the buck.

(Click Pic For More)

Craig DeLuz

Visit The Home of Uncommon Sense…
www.craigdeluz.com