CommunityMy FDL

Religious Reich Tries New Attack In California

Randy Thomasson of the Campaign for Children and Families (California’s Focus on the Family) is trying a new attack on the California Supreme Court’s Decision.  Now he says the county clerks cannot issue marriage licenses that say anything other than “bride” and “groom” without new laws being passed.  AND the new laws likely won’t go into effect until January 1, 2009.  It takes a 2/3 majority of the Assembly to put a law into effect earlier.  Randy thinks the Republicans won’t go along (he may be correct.)

That opinion has to be translated into changes in state law, forms, and procedures before any actual same-sex “marriage” can take place, and that hasn’t happened yet and might not for some time, according to a pro-family organization.

For example, one of the legally established forms in California involving marriage issues reflects several references to “bride” and “groom” and “husband” and “wife” that must properly be filled out by “qualifying” individuals before state law allows it to be recognized, according to Randy Thomasson of the Campaign for Children and Families.

And state law demands, “Every person who knowingly procures or offers any false or forged instrument to be filed, registered, or recorded in any public office within this state … is guilty of a felony.” Thomasson believes that leaves a formal change in state statutes as the only way the state can implement what the court has expressed in its opinion.

More below the fold.

Thomasson told WND that part of the reason that the same-sex “marriage” licenses granted by San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom in 2004 were invalidated by the state Supreme Court is that the state forms hadn’t been changed legally, and the state’s laws ban making individual alterations on such forms.

He said the laws cannot be changed arbitrarily.

“The courts give their opinions. They cannot make the Legislature do something,” he said. “The Legislature can respond and pass legislation, but the democratic process must be followed.”

Mark Horton, director of the state Public Health Department, oversees the state’s Office of Vital Records, and spokeswoman Linette Scott simply stated, “We are going to be in compliance with the court order.”

But Thomasson already has faxed Horton a letter concerning the forms, and changes to them:

“The standard marriage application form and processes cannot be changed from a ‘bride’ and a ‘groom’ or a ‘man’ and ‘woman’ without the Legislature first putting a bill on the governor’s desk that he signs,” Thomasson advised.

“The authority of California statutes was clearly understood by your office in 2004 when the city of San Francisco created altered forms which were out of compliance with the marriage statutes governing this process. Even with the Supreme Court’s May 15 ruling, only the Legislature can change the statutes which govern those forms,” he wrote.

“The California Constitution clearly limits lawmaking power to the Legislature and the voters. This foundational requirement of our democratic process applies now to changing the marriage forms in response to the court,” he said.

The state’s marriage forms create complications for those who would simply use their own judgment and initiative to create, or change, a form. They already read: “Make no erasures, whiteouts or other alterations.”

“These statutes are in the California Family Code, placed there by the Legislature and the people through the initiative process, which, according to the California Constitution, are the only two legislative powers in the state,” Thomasson’s organization said.

In 2004, during the month of San Francisco’s “marriages,” a spokesman for the state agency that registers marriages confirmed that the standard application form is required, “and if it has been altered in any way, then it will not be registered and recorded.”

The official said forms with “bride” and “groom” crossed out and alternatives written in cannot be recognized.

“We have to follow the law when we process these forms. It’s part of the public statute,” said Nicole Evans, spokeswoman for Kim Belshe, the California Health and Human Services secretary.

“Unlike Massachusetts, which has no statutes on marriage licenses, forms and processes, California cannot change its standard marriage form or processes until the Legislature passes and the governor signs legislation in response to the Supreme Court’s ruling,” Thomasson said.

Thomasson said the American people also must learn from the ruling.

“We cannot just live as Americans and believe when a judge rules, we have to submit. There are very many virtuous people throughout history who have said ‘no’ to unjust commands, unjust orders,” he said.

The complete story is here:…

It is interesting to see the legal maneuvering the Religious Reich is willing to try.  It reminds one of swallowing camels and gagging at gnats.  I wonder if Randy ever stops to consider where the Love is in all his work?

Previous post

Dear Media (And Republican Posers): It's Not A "Ranch" Unless There's Cattle On It

Next post

Jenna Bush Hager Offers Bush Ranch to Ellen for Wedding