Katie Peters Facebook Rebuttal

1) Do you know the difference between a Revision to the Constitution and an Amendment to the Constitution in the context of California Civil Procedure? If so, do you think Prop 8 classifies as an Amendment or a Revision. Since, the majority of legal scholars believe it is in fact a Revision, should have Protect Marriage circumvented the Revision Process?

2) What is the difference between a plurality, a simple majority, and a super majority? There are different requirements based on the type of referendum it is, Revisions require a super majority of the Legislature before being placed on the ballot. Prop 8 circumvented this requirement. 

3) Marbury v Madison … established judicial review of laws. Do you not believe in judicial review?

4) The Constitution establishes three co-equal branches of government, should we get rid of the independent judiciary?

5) What is the process of becoming a justice on the California Supreme Court? Are you aware that they are actually approved by the people directly, so they are more or less elected by the people?

6) Did you realize that the California Legislature passed same-sex marriage on three separate occasions, but our Governor chose to deffer to the courts?

7) Both Turner v. Safley, Perez v Sharp, and Loving v Virgina said that marriage is a fundamental right. And, are you aware of the many differences between marriage and civil unions in California?

8) Are you aware of the three levels of scrutiny? Rational, Intermediate, and Strict, and which level must be applied to different types of “classes” of people? Are you aware that in California, LGBT is considered a protected class just like race or religion? That, if the state is to provide a service to one subgroup of people, it must provide the same service to all the people? For example, if it allows permits of licenses for whites, it must give it to all other races as well. Or, if they can give permits/licenses to Protestants, they have to give it to Catholics, Buddhists, Shinto, etc etc? Therefore, if they allow marriage licenses to straight people, they must also provide marriage licenses to LGBT people? So, they either allow marriage for ALL, or marriage for NONE. (That might very well be their decision.)

9) Have you bothered to read In Re: Marriage Cases, or ANY of the briefs filed? Are you aware of any other land mark court decisions which pertained to minority rights? Such as the court decision saying California Schools could not ban JWs from going to school because they refused to swear an oath to the flag? 

10) Should the general electorate be able to overturn any controversial court decision? How about Loving v Virginia? How about Lawrence v Texas? How about Brown v Board of Education? Perez v Sharp? Hernandez v Texas? One, Inc. v. Olesen, Speiser v. Randall, United States v. Raines, Boynton v. Virginia, Braunfeld v. Brown, Torcaso v. Watkins, Edwards v. South Carolina, Abington School District v. Schempp, Sherbert v. Verner, Griffin v. Maryland, segregation protests, Bell v. Maryland, McLaughlin v. Florida, Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States, Katzenbach v. McClung, United States v. Seeger, Harman v. Forssenius, Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, United States v. Price, Reitman v. Mulkey, Green v. County School Board of New Kent County, Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, Alexander v. Holmes County Board of Education, Baird v. State Bar of Arizona, Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, Reed v. Reed, Parisi v. Davidson, Cruz v. Beto, Wisconsin v. Yoder, San Antonio Independent School Dist. v. Rodriguez, Frontiero v. Richardson, Geduldig v. Aiello, Milliken v. Bradley, Goss v. Lopez, Stanton v. Stanton, Rose v. Locke, Washington v. Davis, Serbian Orthodox Diocese v. Milivojevich, Runyon v. McCrary, Craig v. Boren, Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Corp., Califano v. Goldfarb, McDaniel v. Paty, Cannon v. University of Chicago, United Steel Workers of America v. Weber, Fullilove v. Klutznick, Stone v. Graham, Michael M. v. Superior Court of Sonoma County, Thomas v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division, Widmar v. Vincent, Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, United States v. Lee, Connick v. Myers, Bob Jones University v. United States, Marsh v. Chambers, Grove City College v. Bell, Lynch v. Donnelly, Allen v. Wright, Wallace v. Jaffree, Thornton v. Caldor, Witters v. Washington Department of Services For the Blind, Bowen v. Roy, McCleskey v. Kemp, Turner v. Safley,O’Lone v. Estate of Shabazz, Lying v. Northwest Indian CPA, City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co., Board of Estimate of City of New York v. Morris, Westside School District v. Mergens, R. A. V. v. City of St. Paul, Lee v. Weisman, United States v. Fordice, Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, Adarand Constructors v. Peña, Rosenberger v. University of Virginia, Romer v. Evans, United States v. Virginia, Agostini v. Felton, Rice v. Cayetano, Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, Grutter v. Bollinger, …. 

It seems to me, all you wanted to do was complain about activist judges who are not elected by the people. When in fact, in California they ARE elected by the people. Not only that, they have the role of judicial review and enforcing rights for minorities. And, the cases before the courts today do not have anything to do with the legality of same-sex marriage, but rather whether Prop 8 qualifies as an Amendment or a Revision. And, the court has ruled in three other cases that previously passed amendments should have been placed on the ballot as a Revision. Therefore, if the referendum process can be used to take any group of people’s rights or liberties, then ANY suspect classes rights or liberties can be taken away just as easily. Therefore, minority groups legal defense subdivisions have an interest in making sure Prop 8 is invalidated, which is why the NAACP, MALDEF, and ALLDEF have filed suit. And, the CCC has also filed suit saying people could use the referendum process to violate the rights of religious minorities. As the child of two life time members of the NAACP, I am very interested in making sure that ethnic minorities cannot be threatened by the referendum process in the future. I’m also concerned that certain key court decisions protecting JW, or Mennonites and Quakers might be overturned in the future if Prop 8 is allowed to stand. Since my dad is a Mennonite and all. 

So please, spare me the diatribes if you are not going to bother to look into the facts.

Gay Pride

MAKE PRIDE A PROTEST AGAIN!

Facebook has a group starting this movement.  See Facebook for details.

Save Fresno’s March!

Event Cancellation, Finances, and

Volunteers.

 Due to lack of funds and support for some marches, we have had to Cancel our planned Rally on the State Capital for Tuesday, but look for more information on a larger rally we are working on there later this month.

 Also, The Fresno march is on the verge of cancellation, so please, if you want it to continue, DONATE and VOLUTEER, we need confirmed attendees and people willing to help!

 

The same goes for all the other rallies, these things are expensive, tonights rally in Silverlake was fairly cheap at just under $4,000. The Peir is expensive, San Francisco is REAL expensive, so Please, give what you can, every bit helps us reach the goal and put on these rallies we really want to perform. Thanks for all of your support.

This alert was sent by a Facebook member, but no link attached.  Please visit Facebook for more info!