The Sacramento Union -- Prop 8 (Imported Article)

Disbar Jerry Brown

December 29, 2008

California Attorney General Jerry Brown has effectively told his clients, California’s voters, to drop dead: He will not defend or enforce Proposition 8, a law they duly adopted in November by a margin of 52 percent to 48 percent. In fact, he’s decided to oppose it. For this, he should be disbarred.

Under Article 5, Section 13 of the California Constitution, the attorney general is required to “see that the laws of the State are uniformly and adequately enforced.” When the voters enacted Proposition 8, it became a law that Brown must enforce. He has violated professional ethical standards by failing to provide zealous legal representation in defense of that law and by subordinating the interests of voters to his selfish political designs.

California enacted Proposition 8 to amend the California Constitution to define marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman. Advocates of same-sex marriage promptly challenged the initiative. Their arguments will be heard before the California Supreme Court as early as March of 2009.

On Dec. 19, Brown violated his ethical duty to uphold the state’s laws when he filed a last-minute, 111-page brief in the case asking that the Supreme Court invalidate the newly-adopted initiative.

Brown’s act of “switching teams in the middle of the game” has astonished the legal community. As Goodwin Liu, associate dean and professor of law at UC Berkeley’s Boalt Hall School of Law, told the Los Angeles Times, it is “extraordinary for the chief law enforcement officer of the state to decline to enforce a law—even on the grounds that it is unconstitutional.”

At least one other commentator has pointed out that Brown’s failure to defend a state ballot measure adopted by the voters may be extraordinary but not unprecedented. In 1964, then-California Attorney General Thomas C. Lynch declined to defend a ballot measure, Proposition 14, enacted by 65 percent of the electorate. Lynch refused to defend the ballot measure from its inception, based on his conclusion and later vindicated by the U.S. Supreme Court in Reitman v. Mulkey, 387 U.S. 369 (1967), that it violated the U.S. Constitution.

For Brown, the matter is entirely different. Unlike Lynch, Brown not only refused to defend a duly-adopted state ballot measure, but he is now actively opposing it. Until the eleventh hour, Brown acknowledged that he had a duty to “defend the proposition as enacted by the people of California.” Then he abandoned his client at the last possible, and worst, moment, citing a half-baked theory that Proposition 8 violates, not the U.S. Constitution, but the fundamental liberty interests of the California Constitution.

The untoward result has been that the majority who favored Proposition 8 is now without state representation. The ballot measure’s advocate, Protect Marriage, had to retain, at its own expense, former U.S. Solicitor General Kenneth W. Starr to defend the proposition. Even more outrageous, tax dollars will be redirected to support the position favored by only a minority of the state’s voters.

We believe that the attorney general must be held to the same standards of conduct that govern all others licensed to practice law in California. Under the American Bar Association’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1.3, a lawyer’s most fundamental professional obligation is to represent his client zealously.

Subject to specific limitations, “zealous representation” requires a lawyer to use all available means to represent his client. He cannot continue to represent his client while simultaneously attacking the client’s interests. If he cannot conscientiously represent his client, he must recuse himself, allowing someone else to competently perform that essential function. Brown had the option of removing himself from the case and arranging for substitution of competent, outside counsel. This he refused to do.

What caused him to abruptly switch sides and betray his client? He told the media that he developed the “theory” of his opposition to Proposition 8 after consulting with his staff for several weeks. But since Brown’s days as “Governor Moonbeam” in the 1970s, his machinations have often been impenetrable. The former monk opposed California’s landmark Proposition 13; then, after, appraising its enormous grass-roots support, he famously “pirouetted” and endorsed the ballot measure.

It seems that Brown has again “pirouetted,” in this instance because he knows he will soon be vying for his party’s gubernatorial nomination against San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, competing for support from the same base of gay and gay-friendly voters. To put it bluntly, Brown ceased being an attorney and became a politician.

Some have suggested that Brown should be recalled. This would be a valid choice for the state’s voters. However, the process is costly, divisive and time-consuming.

A far better means of dealing with Brown’s official misfeasance would be to seek to remove administratively his license to practice law in California. It is a consequence that awaits any other California attorney who ignores his fundamental professional obligation.

Why should Brown be treated any differently?

Gender Wars

The Family Unit – Obsolete?

I have written on this quite extensively, but I never thought it would actually pass. This is the main reason I voted for Arnold, was to keep this type of legislation out of the flow. What an ineffective Governor he has been!

"We're calling upon every California parent to pull their child out of California's public school system," he told WND.

"The so-called 'public schools' are no longer a safe emotional environment for children. Under the new law, schoolchildren as young as kindergarten will be sexually indoctrinated and introduced to homosexuality, bisexuality, and transsexuality, over the protests of parents, teachers and even school districts," he said.

The law at issue went through the California legislature as SB 777, and now bans in school texts and activities any discriminatory bias against those who have chosen alternative sexual lifestyles [like even using the terms “Mom” or “Dad”] , Meredith Turney, legislative liaison for Capitol Resource Institute, said.

The World Congress noted the law prohibits "instruction" or "activity" that is perceived to "promote a discriminatory bias" against "gender," including cross-dressing and sex-change operations as well as "so-called sexual orientation." ….

…. "It will prohibit anything that suggests that the natural family – a man and a woman, married, with children – is normal or typical," said Carlson. "Thus, under this latest advance toward a Brave New World of polymorphous perversion, California textbooks will no longer be able to use words like 'mother and father' and 'husband and wife,' because they suggest that heterosexuality is the norm – even though that is manifestly the case, even in California."

The organization's statement called it "unbelievable" that teachers and students who oppose same-sex marriage and suggest homosexuality isn't innate, or disapprove of cross-dressing and sex-change operations, could be disciplined as "harassers," and students may use the restrooms designated for the gender with which they identify.

"California parents who don't want to see their children subjected to gender indoctrination will now have no alternative but to withdraw from the public education system – which they will be required to fund, nonetheless," Carlson said. …

….While SB 777 provides protections for those promoting alternative lifestyle choices, there are no similar protections for students with traditional or conservative lifestyles and beliefs. Offenders will face the wrath of the state Department of Education, up to and including lawsuits.

"SB 777 will result in reverse discrimination against students with religious and traditional family values. These students have lost their voice as the direct result of Gov. Schwarzenegger's unbelievable decision. The terms 'mom and dad' or 'husband and wife' could promote discrimination against homosexuals if a same-sex couple is not also featured," said Turney.

"Parents want the assurance that when their children go to school they will learn the fundamentals of reading, writing and arithmetic – not social indoctrination regarding alternative sexual lifestyles. Now that SB 777 is law, schools will in fact become indoctrination centers for sexual experimentation," she said.

Karen England, chief of CRI, told WND that the law is not a list of banned words, including "mom" and "dad." But she said the requirement is that the law bans discriminatory bias and the effect will be to ban such terminology.

"Having 'mom' and 'dad' promotes a discriminatory bias. You have to either get rid of 'mom' and 'dad' or include everything when talking about [parental issues]," she said. "They [promoters of sexual alternative lifestyles] do consider that discriminatory."

WND Article Link

I talked to one parent today who said he is sickened that his young daughter could be in the same women’s restroom with a male who could be very unstable (obviously so)… legally. I agree, what a nightmare for family who have the protection of their children and the passing on of their mores to them in mind.

Democrats Declare Gender War… Again!

Gender Based titles – “Mom”, “Dad”, “Prom King”, “Prom Queen” – Removed from California Textbooks and Schools

I looked into this in early 2006, Gov. Schwarzenegger vetoed the original bill, and will hopefully do the same with this one. Which is why even a liberal Republican like Arnold is so important to have as Governor rather than, say, a Bustamante. The original bill, as well as this new one, was sponsored by Democratic state Sen. Sheila Kuehl, a lesbian and a member of the California Legislative Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, & Transgender Caucus.

The original bill, SB 1437, would have prohibited teachers, school districts, textbooks and instructional materials from presenting anything that "reflects adversely upon persons" because of their "sexual orientation." The bill also would have prohibited instructional materials containing "sectarian or denominational doctrine or propaganda" regarding homosexuality. Presumably, that would have prevented materials from saying that homosexuality is anything but natural.

A section of the bill requiring the teaching of "gay history" was stripped weeks ago in hopes of making the bill less controversial and more acceptable for Schwarzenegger….

Free Republic Article

I wrote on this in the second part of a blog under my “legal” category of my site. I will post just a few snippets here. I want everyone here reading to understand that these issues are being put forward by Democrats. If the Democrats take control of the country – hypothetically – you would see all gender roles and designations changed to neutral designations. And similar to Canada, if a preacher taught from Romans chapter 1, he or she could be thrown in jail. The 9^th District Court of Appeals even looked into gender designations as hate-crimes (see below). This is insanity folks. Period.

From My Blog: Some Not So Politically-Correct Rantings

The next “hot-button” issue that will start – and has started – in California is that of “gender issues.” Men, who feel as if they are really a woman can, under California law, use a women’s restroom. Or a man may dawn women’s cloths if he so desires, and an employer cannot tell this person to alter their habits. In fact, if an employee of a California business see’s a man enter a womans restroom, he cannot ask the person to not do so, it could be a potential lawsuit… even if the restrooms are multiple stalled kinds. This is forcing businesses to simply make single occupancy restrooms for both employees as well as customers.

Some articles on AB 196, AB 606, and SB 1437. (PDF Document on AB 196 from the Transgender Law Center) Companies in California, especially in the San Francisco area should have a game plan in place on how to handle these situations, because the way some people try and get social change today is NOT through voting, but through lawsuits. And many “gay action” websites call for creating legal situations….

…The Assembly approved the bill in April by a vote of 41 to 34, the minimum needed to pass. The state Senate, led by Democrats, followed suit earlier this month with a vote of 23 to 11.

The new law, which provides an exemption for religious groups, makes California the fourth state to bar discrimination on the basis of "perceived gender," behind New Mexico, Rhode Island and Minnesota….

……A special session of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is being held today at the Stanford University Law School where lawyers are arguing whether the words "natural family, marriage and family values" constitute "hate speech" that could intimidate city of Oakland workers….

…AB 606 would give inappropriate, draconian power to the California State Superintendent of Public Instruction to unilaterally withhold state funds from California school districts that don't promote transsexuality, bisexuality, and homosexuality according to his arbitrary 'standards,'" stated an e-mail from the group. "This horrible bill essentially mandates the trans-bi-homosexual agenda in curriculum, textbooks, presentations and more. And because two-thirds of a school districts' funds come from the state, AB 606 would interrupt and destroy the academic learning of millions of California schoolchildren if schools 'don't comply….

Now there is a new drive to get this (these) bill[s] passed. Rewriting them and trying again will bring California to the forefront of the progressive movement. You must contact your representatives and state assembly men and women to fight this (these) craziness.

Capital Resource Institute

The most outrageous homosexual-indoctrination bill California has yet to see is currently awaiting a vote by the full senate.

SB 777 forcibly thrusts young school children into dealing with sexual issues, requiring that homosexuality, bisexuality and transsexuality be taught in a favorable light.

Not only does SB 777 require that classroom instruction and materials promote and embrace controversial sexual practices, it also bans school-sponsored activities from "reflecting adversely" on homosexuals, bisexuals, and transsexuals.

What exactly does this mean for California's school children?

SB 777 will transform our public schools into institutions that disregard all notions of the traditional family unit. It scorns all religious and moral teaching that is contrary to its agenda, regardless of what is taught in the home by the child's parents.

The practical implications of SB 777 could include the following:

Textbooks would have to be rewritten to eliminate references to the traditional family-or at least give equal time and preference to homosexual roommates as is given to a man and woman in a committed marriage relationship. References to "mom and dad" or "husband and wife" could be banned as discriminatory.

*Gender-neutral bathrooms could be required, to accommodate those students who are confused about their gender identity.

*Cheerleading and sports activities would not be permitted to have gender distinctions.

*Schools could be prohibited from having a "prom king and queen," to avoid showing bias based on gender and sexual orientation. Or, schools could be required to crown a female "king," which is something that nearly happened at Fresno High School when transgender student, Cinthia Covarrubias, born a female, decided she would run for prom "king" instead of queen. The issue became moot when Ms. Covarrubias was not elected by the student body.

*Teachers might be barred from stating their support for traditional marriage. AIDS statistics, including disproportional infection rates in the homosexual community, could be considered taboo.

"Pushing this radical homosexual agenda in California schools will stifle the truth in favor of political correctness and will inevitably conflict with the religious and moral convictions of both students and parents," said Karen England, executive director of Capitol Resource Institute. "The full ramifications of this sweeping legislation could affect the entire nation as most textbook companies tailor their material to their number one purchaser: California."

You can go to the source itself to study what they are pushing for: Transgender and Gender Non-Conforming Students’ Rights in California Schools. Taken from the Transgender Law Center

Gender Wars in California Schools

Here we go again

World Net Daily Article

A plan that has been launched in the California state Assembly again could be used to ban references to "mom" and "dad" in public schools statewide by prohibiting anything that would "reflect adversely" on the homosexual lifestyle choice.

It's similar to a plan WND reported was approved by lawmakers last year, but fell by the wayside when Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed it.

"SB 777 forcibly thrusts young school children into dealing with sexual issues, requiring that homosexuality, bisexuality and transsexuality be taught in a favorable light," according to an alert issued by the Capitol Resource Institute.

"Not only does SB 777 require that classroom instruction and materials promote and embrace controversial sexual practices, it also bans school-sponsored activities from 'reflecting adversely' on homosexuals, bisexuals and transsexuals," the group said.

"Pushing this radical homosexual agenda in California schools will stifle the truth in favor of political correctness and will inevitably conflict with the religious and moral convictions of both students and parents," said CRI Executive Director Karen England. "The full ramifications of this sweeping legislation could affect the entire nation as most textbook companies tailor their material to their number one purchaser: California."

She noted that Los Angeles schools already have implemented most of the proposals now pending for districts across the state, and among the changes are:

1. "Mom" and "dad" and "husband" and "wife" would have to be edited from all texts.
2. Cheerleading and sports teams would have to be gender-neutral.
3. Prom kings and queens would be banned, or if featured, would have to be gender neutral so that the king could be female and the queen male.
4. Gender-neutral bathrooms could be required for those confused about their gender identity.
5. A male who believes he really is female would be allowed into the women's restroom, and a woman believing herself a male would be allowed into a men's room.
6. Even scientific information, such has statistics showing AIDS rates in the homosexual community, could be banned.

"It's embarrassing that we've got kids who can't pass their exit exams, but we add all sorts of complications [to school]," she told WND.

She cited an informational document published by the Gay-Straight Alliance Network and the Transgender Law Center. ….

"If you want to use a restroom that matches your gender identity you should be allowed to do so," it advises. "Whenever students are divided up into boys and girls, you should be allowed to join the group or participate in the program that matches your gender identity as much as possible."

Further, the groups advise, "If you change your name to one that better matches your gender identity, a school needs to use that name to refer to you." …