Radiation Network

Comments Off


Welcome to RadiationNetwork.com, home of the National Radiation Map, depicting environmental radiation levels across the USA, updated in real time every minute.  This is the first web site where the average citizen (or anyone in the world) can see what radiation levels are anywhere in the USA at any time (see Disclaimer below).

Nuclear Site                 Alert Level = 100 CPM

How the Map Works:

A growing number of Radiation Monitoring Stations across the country, using various models of Digital GeigerCounters, upload their Radiation Count data in real time to their computer using a Data Cable, and then over the Internet to this web site, all of this accomplished through GeigerGraph for Networks software.

How to Read the Map:

Referring to the Map Legend at the bottom left corner of the map, locate Monitoring Stations around the country that are contributing radiation data to this map as you read this, and watch the numbers on those monitoring stations update as frequently as every minute (your browser will automatically refresh).  The numbers represent radiation Counts per Minute, abbreviated CPM, and under normal conditions, quantify the level of background radiation, i.e. environmental radiation from outer space as well as from the earth’s crust and air.  Depending on your location within the US, your elevation or altitude, and your model of Geiger counter, this background radiation level might average anywhere from 5 to 60 CPM, and while background radiation levels are random, it would be unusual for those levels to exceed 100 CPM.  Thus, the “Alert Level” for the National Radiation Map is 100 CPM, so if you see any Monitoring Stations with CPM value above 100, further indicated by an Alert symbol over those stations, it probably means that some radioactive source above and beyond background radiation is responsible.

Radiation Network

Judge Upholds Stay on Same Sex Marriage in California

Comments Off

Well no same sex marriages in California for a while now…that’s good news. The will of the California people is holding for right now and it should be standing until they vote to change their mind….if they do. The federal government has no Constitutional authority to stick their nose in this. This should be a State to State decision voted on by “the people.”

Appeals Court Stays Prop 8 Marriage Ruling and Ban

The Ninth Circuit has stayed Judge Vaughn Walker’s ruling in the high-profile Constitutional challenge to California’s same-sex marriage ban.

The case is scheduled to be heard in early December. So hold the wedding bells.

There is some good news, though, for the same-sex plaintiffs: The court warned in its order that it’s considering dismissing the appeal on the grounds that the appelants — who don’t include the Governor or Attorney General — lack standing.

“In addition to any issues appellants wish to raise on appeal, appellants are directed to include in their opening brief a discussion of why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of Article III standing,” says the order.


New campaign demanding ‘gay’ Prop. 8 Judge Vaughn Walker be booted

Comments Off

This is what happens when you defy and rile “we the people”.

New campaign demanding ‘gay’ Prop. 8 judge be booted

‘It’s just a gross breach of his judicial responsibilities … activism on steroids’

The openly homosexual federal judge in California who overturned the state’s constitutional limitation of marriage to one man and one woman ignored a warning from the state’s own Supreme Court about the coming chaos of polygamy and incest if same-sex “marriages” are established and now is the target of an impeachment campaign.

Judge Vaughn Walker, who openly has lived a homosexual lifestyle, yesterday issued an order that the state could not enforce its own constitutional requirement that marriage is between members of the opposite sex only.

The ruling from Walker said “race and gender restrictions shaped marriage during eras of race and gender inequality, but such restrictions were never part of the historical core of the institution of marriage.”

“Today, gender is not relevant to the state in determining spouses’ obligations to each other,” Walker said. “Gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage.”

His opinion ignored the terse warning in state Supreme Court Justice Marvin Baxter’s dissenting opinion in the 2008 case affirming same-sex marriage. Baxter warned of the “legal jujitsu” required to establish same-sex marriage just a few months before California voters passed Proposition 8 and amended the constitution to limit marriage to one man and one woman.

“The bans on incestuous and polygamous marriages are ancient and deeprooted, and, as the majority suggests, they are supported by strong considerations of social policy,” Baxter warned in his dissent. “Our society abhors such relationships, and the notion that our laws could not forever prohibit them seems preposterous. Yet here, the majority overturns, in abrupt fashion, an initiative statute confirming the equally deeprooted assumption that marriage is a union of partners of the opposite sex. The majority does so by relying on its own assessment of contemporary community values, and by inserting in our Constitution an expanded definition of the right to marry that contravenes express statutory law.

“Who can say that, in 10, 15 or 20 years, an activist court might not rely on the majority’s analysis to conclude, on the basis of a perceived evolution in community values, that the laws prohibiting polygamous and incestuous marriages were no longer constitutionally justified?” Baxter wrote.

The decision by Walker, which is being appealed, was too much for the tradition-oriented American Family Association, which promptly launched an action alert to its several million supporters.

The alert asks supporters to contact their members of Congress and demand impeachment of Walker.

“What you have here is a federal judge using the power of his position to legitimize what is sexually aberrant behavior,” Bryan Fischer, an analyst for the organization, told WND. “He’s trampling on the will of 7 million voters in California. It’s just a gross breach of his judicial responsibility.

“We think of it as an expression of judicial tyranny, judicial activism on steroids,” he said.

The organization’s action alert offers to constituents an option to track down their representatives in Washington and contact them directly on the issue.

“We have congressmen, they actually campaign on the premise these judges are unaccountable,” Fischer said.

But that’s simply wrong, he contended.

“There is a provision under which they can be held to account. The Framers did not intend for any branch of government to be unaccountable. There are mechanisms for federal judges who are out of control to be called to account,” he said.

Fischer noted the federal documentation provides that judges serve during “good behavior.”

“Of course, that leaves the question open for discussion what is good behavior, but our contention is this is egregiously bad on the part of this judge,” he said.

The AFA argues that since “marriage policy is not established anywhere in the federal Constitution, defining marriage, according to the 10th Amendment, is an issue reserved for the states.”

But, “Under Judge Walker, it’s no longer ‘We the People,’ it’s ‘I the Judge,’” the action alert states.

“In addition, Judge Walker is an open homosexual, and should have recused himself from this case due to his obvious conflict of interest.”

“Impeachment proceedings, according to the Constitution, begin in the House of Representatives. It’s time for you to put your congressman on record regarding the possible impeachment of Judge Walker,” the alert said.

Fischer said the goal is that the campaign will put members of Congress on the spot, and on the record, about their willingness to rein in a renegade federal judge.

Worldnet Daily

Homosexual Judge overturns California’s ban on same-sex marriage

1 Comment

Well for the THIRD time an activist Federal Judge has struck down ‘the will of the people’ that was voted in by them. As you read this article, you might also find it interesting and informative to read another article on this blog entitled ONLY the US Supreme Court has Constitutional Authority to Conduct the Trial Against Arizona” , because the same thing applies to this California case as it did to the Arizona case.

Newt Gingrich: Gay Marriage Ruling ‘Outrageous’

“Judge Walker’s ruling overturning Prop 8 is an outrageous disrespect for our Constitution and for the majority of people of the United States who believe marriage is the union of husband and wife. In every state of the union from California to Maine to Georgia, where the people have had a chance to vote they’ve affirmed that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. Congress now has the responsibility to act immediately to reaffirm marriage as a union of one man and one woman as our national policy.

“Today’s notorious decision also underscores the importance of the Senate vote tomorrow on the nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court because judges who oppose the American people are a growing threat to our society.”

Prop. 8 ruling will ‘stir a fire’

A pastor and pro-family activist believes the federal judge’s decision to usurp the will of the people of California marks a sad day for the state and for the rest of the country.

On Wednesday, Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker ruled in favor of four homosexuals who claimed that voter-approved Proposition 8, which defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman, violated their civil rights. (See earlier story)

Jim Garlow, lead pastor of Skyline Wesleyan Church in La Mesa, California, says the judge threw out the principle of “we the people.”

Jim Garlow“He simply ripped from the state of California and seven-million voters the chance to articulate the definition of marriage that’s been accepted for over 5,000 years,” Garlow laments.

He notes that because the ruling will affect so many other states that already outlaw same-sex “marriage,” he expects the American people will be angry.

Some other Reactions to the Unconstitutional ruling by the Federal Judge

In March 2000, California voters approved Proposition 22, which specified in state law that only marriages between a man and a woman are valid in California. But in May 2008, the state Supreme Court ruled the law was unconstitutional because it discriminated against gays, and an estimated 18,000 same-sex couples got married in the ensuing months.

Opponents of same-sex marriage quickly got Proposition 8 on the November 2008 ballot to amend the state constitution, and it was approved by a margin of 52.5 percent to 47.5 percent.

The approval of the measure led to statewide protests and lawsuits challenging the legality of Proposition 8.

In May 2009, the California Supreme Court upheld Prop. 8, but also ruled that the unions of roughly 18,000 same-sex couples who were wed in 2008 would remain valid.

Here’s some reactions from San Diego 6′s article:

“Judge Walker has ignored the written words of the Constitution, which he swore to support and defend and be impartially faithful to, and has instead imposed his own homosexual agenda upon the voters, the parents and the children of California,” Thomasson said.

“This is a blatantly unconstitutional ruling because marriage isn’t in the U.S. Constitution,” he said. “The Constitution guarantees that state policies be by the people, not by the judges, and also supports states’ rights, thus making marriage a state jurisdiction.”

Thomasson added that as “a Californian and an American, I am angry that this biased homosexual judge, in step with other judicial activists, has trampled the written Constitution, grossly misused his authority and imposed his own agenda, which the Constitution does not allow and which both the people of California and California state authorities should by no means respect.”

Dr. Jim Garlow from Skyline Wesleyan Church added, “if you did this on the basis of equal protection and a person says I want to tbe married to 3 people or 5 people or I want to be married to my dog, what right does he have not to provide ‘equal protection’?”

Garlow said this could have an effect at the ballot box. “There will be a backlash, a conservative movement, that I think will play an even greater role in November.”

Federal Judge Rules Gay Marriage Ban is Unconstitutional

SAN DIEGO – Marriage equality supporters in San Diego praised a federal judge’s decision Wednesday to strike down Proposition 8, the state’s voter- approved ban on same-sex marriage.

“I am overjoyed that the U.S. District Court overturned Proposition 8,” San Diego City Councilman Todd Gloria said. “I know our fight to secure this right is not over, but I am confident this civil right will be confirmed and marriage equality will be realized.”

The ruling is expected to be appealed to the 9th U.S. District Court of Appeals and eventually the U.S. Supreme Court.

San Francisco-based U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker presided over the non-jury trial of a lawsuit alleging the voter-approved 2008 measure violates the equal protection rights of gay and lesbian couples by preventing them from marrying.

In a 136-page ruling, Walker wrote that the proposition “both unconstitutionally burdens the exercise of the fundamental right to marry and creates an irrational classification on the basis of sexual orientation.”

“Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license,” Walker wrote. “Indeed the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples.”

Walker issued an order barring the enforcement of the law, but proponents of Proposition 8 were expected to appeal — likely all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. Walker issued a stay on the ruling until at least Friday,meaning same-sex marriages will not immediately resume in the state. Supporters of Prop 8 had asked for a stay, saying allowing couples to marry pending the appeal would create confusion if Walker’s ruling is eventually overturned.

San Diego 6

‘Gay’ judge decides future of homosexual ‘marriage’

Comments Off

Boy, now this makes a lot of sense doesn’t it? After the voters of California have put this ‘gay marriage’ thing on the ballot I think it’s 2x now and each time voted for marriage to be between a man and a woman………it still ends up in court. Now tell me is this the Constitution by the people or a judge? I thought it was supposed to be by the people…..So why is this going to court again? And with a ‘gay’ judge, now you know it will be a fair trial won’t it.

‘Gay’ judge decides future of homosexual ‘marriage’

U.S. District Court Chief Judge Vaughn Walker is presiding over Perry v. Schwarzenegger. Sources say Walker is homosexual.

SACRAMENTO – A San Francisco district court judge who is reportedly homosexual will decide soon whether to overturn the will of California voters and strike down Proposition 8 – the state’s constitutional amendment that defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman – in a landmark trial that many say is likely headed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Attorneys for both sides presented closing arguments today in the trial Perry v. Schwarzenegger, a lawsuit seeking to declare the proposition violates the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Voters first approved the definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman as a state law in 2000, then again in 2008 as an amendment to the state constitution with 52 percent of the vote. Later, the state Supreme Court, reversing its own ruling from only months earlier, affirmed 6-1 that the provision is constitutional.

While Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Democrat Attorney General Jerry Brown are listed as defendants in the lawsuit, both have opposed Proposition 8 and refused to defend it in court – forcing the private attorneys to defend the law.

Now, Alliance Defense Fund attorneys, along with lead counsel Charles Cooper and ADF-allied attorney Andrew Pugno, have intervened on behalf of ProtectMarriage.com, the group that sponsored the amendment campaign. They are defending Proposition 8 again in a trial that ADF warns could impact marriage laws in as many as 45 other states – including the 30 states where voters adopted state constitutional amendments.

ADF senior legal counsel Austin Nimocks spoke to WND as he left the courtroom today.

“I think the closing arguments went very well, especially the arguments of Charles Cooper,” Nimocks said. “All the legal bases were covered, and I think he did an excellent job articulating why the voices of more than 7 million Californians, in enacting Prop 8, were constitutional voices with the full entitlement to do exactly what they did.”

Nimocks added that regardless of how the judge rules, the case is likely to be appealed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Then the losing side will likely appeal that ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court, though the court is under no obligation to review the case.

“In 1972, the U.S. Supreme Court already ruled on same-sex marriage, ruling that there was no fundamental right to same-sex marriage,” he said. “It’s quite possible that the high court doesn’t need to revisit this issue that’s already decided.”

Perry had her homosexual union invalidated by the state Supreme Court. Several other homosexual activists have taken their complaints to federal court as well.

In a statement today, Randy Thomasson, president of SaveCalifornia.com, a group that’s not party to the Proposition 8 case but defends traditional marriage, declared, “The lawsuit against Prop. 8 … is more than an attack against natural marriage. It’s an attack against our republic and our democracy. Our republic, because a judge took this case and made a circus out of it, despite the word ‘marriage’ not being in the U.S. Constitution and the 10th Amendment protecting states’ rights to define marriage. Our democracy, because the voters of California have twice passed ballot measures defining marriage, even defining marriage in the California Constitution.”

Thomasson added, “If the federal courts strike down Prop. 8, they will have declared war on the voters in the 30 states that have defined marriage in their state constitutions.”

Worldnet Daily

Mexico opens California office to provide ID for illegals

Comments Off

Oh brother…..now Mexico is opening a office in the US to give illegals an ID and asked law enforcement on Catalina Island not to enforce illegal immigration laws while they are issuing the (matricular cards) ID cards.

Mexico opens California office to provide ID for illegals

The Mexican government is opening a satellite consular office on Catalina Island — a small resort off the California coast with a history of drug smuggling and human trafficking — to provide the island’s illegal Mexican immigrants with identification cards, The Washington Examiner has learned.

The Mexican consular office in Los Angeles issued a flier, a copy of which was obtained by The Examiner, listing the Catalina Island Country Club as the location of its satellite office. It invites Mexicans to visit the office to obtain the identification, called matricular cards, by appointment.

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, a Republican whose district includes Catalina Island, said handing out matricular cards will exacerbate an already dangerous situation.

“Handing out matricular cards to Mexicans who are not in this country legally is wrong no matter where it’s done,” he said. “But on Catalina it will do more damage. It’s a small island but there’s evidence it’s being used as a portal for illegals to access mainland California.”

Rohrabacher added, “If there were a large number of Americans illegally in Mexico and the U.S. consulate was making it easier for them to stay, Mexico would never permit it.” (They sure wouldn’t, not for a minute.)

Mexican officials with the consular office in Los Angeles could not be reached immediately for comment. The matricular consular identification card, is issued by the Mexican government to Mexican nationals residing outside the country, regardless of immigration status. The purpose is to provide identification for opening bank accounts and obtaining other services. But the cards are usually used to skirt U.S. immigration laws, since Mexicans in the country legally have documents proving that status, Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials said.

In 2004 testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee, FBI officials called the card an unreliable form of identification. The agency said that Mexico lacks a centralized database for them, which could lead to forgery, duplication, and other forms of abuse.

Officers with the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement said their agency was asked by Mexican officials not to enforce U.S. immigration laws on the island while the cards were being issued.

“It amazes me every time that the Mexican government has the gall to tell us what to do,” said an ICE official, who asked not to be named. “More surprisingly is how many times we stand by and let them. This is just an example of one of hundreds of requests we’ve had to deal with.”

Utah considering Arizona style illegal alien law

Comments Off

You just have to love  this, here we have California wanting to boycott Arizona because of their new Illegal Immigration law and right behind all this comes Texas and Utah saying they are considering the same legislation.

Utah Now Considering Arizona Type Immigration Law for Next Year – Which State is Next in Line? Texas that’s Who

This could turn out to be Obama’s worst nightmare. Other states are now considering following Arizona’s lead with their new immigration law. One Utah lawmaker (another is Texas), Stephen Sandstrom, has started work on drafting a version of Arizona’s law for the state of Utah. He claims he will use the Arizona law has a starting point and then adjust his bill as he progresses to address his states concerns. He stated he will submit it to the legislature in the 2011 session. If Utah follows behind Arizona, how long will it be before other states join in and create their own version of the law? And we all know the reason why, don’t we?

As Sandstrom points out, Arizona has gone through periods of tougher enforcement in the past which in turn has increased the flow of illegal aliens into Utah. Makes sense, but if that is the case which I believe it is, other Western states will be soon seeing the same problems. If illegals know they can’t operate freely in Arizona they will simply try to go somewhere else. Which really isn’t solving anything for anyone. I grew up in Utah and know the they have a large Mexican population, some citizens some I’m sure illegal aliens. The issue here is that the federal government is not doing its job and fulfilling its obligations to secure the border.

The  nightmare for liberals and Obama is that if several states get aligned on this Obama will be forced to address immigration, now, not after the 2010 elections. The key here is that the states are all for immigration reform, but they also want the laws of the Untied States enforced, which means picking up the illegals and sending them home, not giving them a path to citizenship, other than the normal routes now out there. States in general, as with the American people will not support amnesty for illegals and this is what Obama and the progressives in congress are trying to do. This issue covers several things including national security, like terrorists entering the country. Do you want to wait until we wake up to a nuclear explosion in an American city to find out the bomb came over the border? Now tell me this can’t happen.

The entire Obama administration (Bush was just as guilty) has failed in its constitutional obligations to secure the borders and protect American citizens from violence and other crimes being committed by illegals. Secure the borders now, then as a nation we can look at ways to help people immigrate legally into the United States. Liberals and Obama need to get it through their heads that amnesty is not immigration reform.


Government & California Gets Ready to Raid……Happy Meals

Comments Off

I try to give a lot of thought before I post things on here, I want what Mike and I to post to be thought provoking.  These  caught my eye.  The video hits hard on Social Security, Medicare and robbing Kids. The second comes from the Queen of Nanny states. I don’t want them to control my diet, my life, or even my trips to the bathroom.  It’s just more and more of big brother that we don’t need.

By Sharon Bernstein, Los Angeles Times

The latest target in the battle over fast food is something you shouldn’t even put in your mouth.

Convinced that Happy Meals and other food promotions aimed at children could make kids fat as well as happy, county officials in Silicon Valley are poised to outlaw the little toys that often come with high-calorie offerings.

The proposed ban is the latest in a growing string of efforts to change the types of foods aimed at youngsters and the way they are cooked and sold. Across the nation, cities, states and school boards have taken aim at excessive sugar, salt and certain types of fats.

Believed to be the first of its kind in the nation, the proposal would forbid the inclusion of a toy in any restaurant meal that has more than 485 calories, more than 600 mg of salt or high amounts of sugar or fat. In the case of McDonald’s, the limits would include all of the chain’s Happy Meals — even those that include apple sticks instead of French fries.

Supporters say the ban would encourage restaurants to offer more-nutritious foods to kids and would make unhealthful items less appealing. But opponents believe it amounts to government meddling in parental decisions. The Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors will consider the proposal Tuesday.

Even though it’s largely symbolic — the proposed ban would apply only to the dozen fast-food restaurants within the jurisdiction of the board — the proposal has caused a bit of an uproar on the Internet, where comments on YouTube and other sites say it is another example of the “nanny state” gone wild.

The California Restaurant Assn. has taken out full-page newspaper advertisements against the proposed ordinance in local newspapers. One shows a little girl with her hands cuffed behind her back as she holds a stuffed animal.

Another opponent wrote in a YouTube posting, “I want to know when the pitchforks and torches and rope is going to come out…. We need to run these Frankenstein politician monsters the hell out of town!”

Ken Yeager, the Santa Clara County supervisor who is behind the effort, says the toys in kids’ meals are contributing to America’s obesity epidemic by encouraging children to eat unhealthful, fattening foods.

“People ask why I want to take toys out of the hands of children,” said Yeager, who is president of the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors. “But we now know that 70% of the kids that are overweight or obese will be overweight or obese as adults. Why would we want to burden anybody with a lifetime of chronic illness?”

According to a recent congressional report, food companies spent about $1.6 billion in 2006 marketing their wares to children. About $360 million was spent on the toys included with kids’ meals, incentives that restaurant marketers have long viewed as key to bringing in families with children.

“We went through a phase when my daughter wanted the Happy Meal just to get the toy,” said Kristen Dimont, 37. The Sunnyvale blogger said that once her child tasted fast food, it took years to coax her back to the healthful variety. Dimont likes the idea of the ban — and thinks the supervisors should consider extending it to the play yards that also attract children to fast-food restaurants.

Rebecca Wolpinsky, 32, a mother of two, says she can’t stand the toys that are included with fast-food meals for children. “The toys are crap, honestly,” she said. “We end up recycling them or they end up getting left in the car.”

But Wolpinsky opposes banning the toys — or blaming them for childhood obesity.

“To say that Burger King or McDonald’s is the root cause or that giving toys with children’s meals is a root cause is not right,” she said.

McDonald’s declined to comment on the proposed ban. But the California Restaurant Assn. has played a major role in the opposition.

If County Supervisor Yeager “wants to take away the toys that are making kids fat, take away Xboxes, take away PlayStations, take away flat-screen TVs,” said Daniel Conway, spokesman for the industry group.

Yeager knows that even if the board passes his proposal, its effect would be small. Even so, he says, it’s worth it.

“We’re responsible for paying for healthcare in the whole county,” Yeager said. “We pay close to $2 billion annually on healthcare, and the costs have done nothing but rise.” A big part of the increase, he said, is costs related to obesity.

Bob Bernstein, the Kansas City, Mo., advertising executive who helped dream up the Happy Meal for McDonald’s in the 1970s, said the concept was to offer something just for kids.

“To make a child happy and to not cost Mom any additional money — that was the original idea,” he said. “The toy was not the reigning reason for the child to order the Happy Meal.”

Don’t Get Mad Girly Men…

Comments Off

First there’s smoke, then there’s transfats…now it’s nasty words….the nanny police are ready for you….

California Assembly passes resolution for Cuss Free Week

By Denis C. Theriault

mercury news

SACRAMENTO — Feeling a little salty, Californians? Better get it out of your system while you can.Amid the ongoing — and occasionally tense — debate over how to clean up California’s budget mess, lawmakers are trying to tidy something else, almost as unmanageable: our language. Thursday morning, the Assembly approved a ceremonial resolution turning the first week of March into “Cuss Free Week.”

With the Senate expected to follow suit next week, all Californians will be asked to bite back on four-letter words and a few choice compound phrases. WT (bleep)?, you ask. Don’t sweat: Police officers won’t be waiting with soap. That’s not the point.

According to sponsors of the measure — inspired by a Southern California teen whose creation of a “no cussing” school club sparked an international movement — it’s more about minding the delicate sensibilities of those around you. Like your grandmother. “When we’re at our grandmother’s house,” said Anthony Portantino, D-Pasadena, “we have respect and decorum.”

Aren’t there more important things on government’s agenda right now? Sure, Portantino concedes. But maybe a little civility is just the prescription to help “break through that logjam.” To keep things honest, Portantino is handing out no-cuss jars to all 120 legislative offices in the Capitol — and to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. Every time a naughty word slips out, a few coins get dropped in.

He’d like us all to try it at home, too.

Updated: Same Sex ‘Marriage’ in Calif. – a never-ending legal battle


I updated the video from the 1-13-10 program. Why can’t these people get over it. The people have spoken 2 or 3 times and have said the same thing each time. If the courts overrule what “the people” have said, can we truthfully continue to say this is a Republic Democracy anymore ?

‘Marriage’ in Calif. – a never-ending legal battle

gay marriage certificate CA smallAttorneys are in San Francisco again to argue yet another lawsuit filed to overturn California’s Proposition 8.

Prop. 8 is the constitutional amendment that a majority of California voters approved in November 2008 to overturn a State Supreme Court decision that legalized homosexual “marriage” in that state. Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) attorney Austin Nimocks tells OneNewsNow that proponents of same-gender marriage — who are arguing that Prop. 8 violates the U.S. Constitution — evidently have a problem with a basic democratic process.

“The advocates of redefining marriage are trying to do it yet once again through the courts, to impose [same-sex marriage] upon people who don’t want it…,” says the attorney. “And really the fundamental issue here is whether or not in America we respect and should uphold the right of a free people to make social policy choices through the democratic process.”

Irrespective of any legal arguments, Nimocks says that is the only focus of the debate. “[W]hat we have here is a handful of activists who are trying to void a constitutional amendment simply because they don’t agree with the collective decision of seven-million Californians,” he states.

Nimocks adds that if the courts allow the activists to get away with it, “we have forfeited the very core of the American democratic system.”

ADF believes Perry v. Schwarzenegger could go all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court — and is asking for the “fervent prayers” of marriage traditionalists across the nation. The trial starts today (January 11) before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

One News Now.com

Older Entries


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 396 other followers