Our Lady of Soccorso



 

End-Of-Life Decisions and Facts


Click to view video.
 
Meeting the needs of Patients - Post
Roe v. Wade



Click to view video.
 
CA Senate Health Committee SB 24 hearing on April 3, 2019.


Click to view full-size.
 
The Star of Bethlehem shines brightly on the newborn child, Jesus.


Click to view full-size.
 
This child doesn’t need Government mandated Pre-K schooling. Young John is the grandchild of a very fine Pro Life Family.


Click to view full-size.
 
Four month and six month old human fetal skeletons, displayed At the Federal Civil War Medical and Military history Museum, in Silver Spring, MD. Display can be found in new more current segment of the museum’s historical displays.


Click to view full-size.
 
Mary Catherine was an abandoned new-born, found in Antioch and buried by Ca. Right to Life and Birthright of concord, at Queen of Heaven Cemetery in Lafayette, Ca. along with 24 other pre-born babies.


Click to view full-size.
 
Come Holy Spirit, enlighten the minds and hearts of your people!
July 4th, 2018






Legislative

Reports

StateFederal
The Supreme Court Decision On Same Sex Marriage
May 28th 2008 @ 9:01 am
by Camille Giglio,
Family Issues Legislative Analyst, California Federation of Republican Women, and
Director, California Right to Life Committee

The right to enter into an
officially recognized family relationship that affords all of the significant legal
rights and obligations traditionally associated under state law with the institution
of marriage, but under which the union of an opposite-sex couple is officially
designated a “marriage” whereas the union of a same-sex couple is officially
designated a “domestic partnership.” The question we must address is whether,
under these circumstances, the failure to designate the official relationship of
same-sex couples as marriage violates the California Constitution.

In re: Marriage Cases: six consolidated appeals

The recent California Supreme Court Case regarding same-sex marriages was a split decision, 4-3, in favor of granting same-sex couples the same standing before the law as heterosexual couples to obtain a marriage license. Concurring; Chief Justice Ron George, Associate justices,

Joyce Kennard, Kathryn Werdegar, Carlos Moreno. Dissenting; Associate Justices Carol Corrigan, Marvin Baxter and Ming Chin.

At the same time while acknowledging that the current Domestic Partner legislation actually provides the same civil rights as a marriage contract; they argue that only the word marriage can convey equality and an “even playing field” in the context of protecting civil rights . The idea conveyed in using the term Domestic Partners somehow, in the minds of these four Justices, conveys second class citizenship for same-sex couples.

These judges relied on a previous finding - Perez v Sharp, that the constitution could not prevent interracial marriages since it would place limits on human beings rights to chose for themselves with whom they would “desire to share one’s life.”

In other words, an interest in “protecting fundamental interest in liberty and personal autonomy” suddenly overrides centuries of tradition and religious teaching.

They said, further, that the “state now recognizes that an individual’s capacity to establish a loving and long term committed relationship [including] [the] care and raising of children does not depend upon one’s individual sexual orientation.” To the Justices this question resides on an “emphasis in protecting the family unit.”

Now we understand the agenda behind the hotly contested argument on a gay’s “right” to adoption.

Governor Schwarzenegger’s recent appointee to the bench, Justice Carol Corrigan, saw things differently in her written descent. She accepts the legal underpinnings of marriage and domestic partnerships to be of equal worth and value and, apparently felt that there was no need to take a case to the Supreme Court.

She said: “It is important to be clear. Under California law, domestic partners have virtually all of the same substantive legal benefits and privileges” available to traditional spouses. (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 45.) I believe the Constitution requires this as a matter of equal protection. However, the single question in this case is whether domestic partners have a constitutional right to the name of “marriage.”

She said, regarding the recent Domestic Partnership legislation: “It is a remarkable achievement that the law now expressly recognizes that domestic partnerships have “almost” the same substantive rights and obligations as spouses.” She uses the word “almost” appearing to be implying that she understands that both can not be exactly the same due to the traditional understanding of marriage as a contract between a man and a woman and their God, while same-sex domestic partnerships, in essence, claim the state as their third party in a purely secular contract.

She is, however, supportive of the Domestic Partnership legislation. She says: “the majority (opinion on same-sex marriage decision) denigrates the Domestic Partners Act legislation which sought equality between marriage and domestic partner rights” thereby reading that legislation as creating second class citizenships.

Judge Corrigan also rejects the argument that this new decision can have as a basis the decision on interracial marriages because that decision - Perez v Sharp - was still based on marriage being between a man and a woman.

She wrote: “The legitimate purpose of the statutes defining marriage is to preserve the traditional understanding of the institution. For that purpose, plaintiffs are not similarly situated with spouses. While their unions are of equal legal dignity, they are different because they join partners of the same gender. Plaintiffs are in the process of founding a new tradition, unfettered by the boundaries of the old one”.

There is a petition being generated now that requests that the court allow at least a month before implementation of this decision while the groups opposed to gay marriage consider a challenge to the decision. Further, Randy Thomasson of California Campaign for Children and Families claims that several pieces of legislation need to be decided prior to implementation, authorizing amendments to various legal codes on marriage and family. This will require new legislation, hearings before committees, both houses to vote on the issue and the Governor to sign or veto any bills. This is the same situation that caused the courts to negate the marriage licenses handed out in San Francisco by Mayor Gavin Newsom’s City Hall clerks.

If this is the case, that legislation needs to happen before implementation, then it might suggest that the court, as Judge Corrigan alludes, interfered in the legislative process. Some people have suggested that their decision was politically motivated.

In the meantime each side of this issue is taking advantage of the moment to urge donations, sign protest forms, call the Governor’s hotline and vote their position on same-sex marriage. The media is interviewing both sides, massive amounts of ink are flowing, blogs and websites are being written with glowing or dire accounts of the future as they see the future being played out in this new enlightened understanding of the purpose of marriage.

Even politicians and campaign managers who view a campaign based on religion as the third rail of politics see this as an opportunity to cash in on the situation. "This will be at the top of the list of issues in the 2008 race, and it comes during a time when Republicans are in desperate need of something that will invigorate the base," declared a Concerned Women of American spokesperson.

The pro same-sex marriage lobbyists declare that their right to marry will not affect the status of marriage for others, but it already has. Marriage is now reduced to an item of political debate. Now that the Sacrament of Matrimony has been reduced to politics and votes where will it go from there? We know where the court decisions on abortion and on civil rights have gone.

The action of the four assenting Justices has placed the Sacrament of marriage exactly where the homosexual community wants it, in the public and secular realm where they have a strong argument for justice and equality on an issue that should be about faith, salvation, moral values and the continuation of mankind.

This decision strikes directly at the biblical reminder that “What God has joined together let no man put asunder.” Quite possibly this has as least as much if not more to do with keeping God in the marriage contract as it does with divorce.

Proposition 22, the marriage amendment, passed eight years ago with a strong majority. The citizens of California will have another opportunity to protect traditional marriage if the 1.1 million signatures gathered so far are approved by the Secretary of State’s office for the November ballot. Information about the ballot initiative entitled Protect Marriage can be found online at http://protectmarriage.com

Its web site contains a list of current supporters. It would seem that every California Republican Senator and Assembly member has signed on.

The future of marriage in California now rests in your hands. It might be well to ponder the warning spoken to the Israelites by Moses in the Book of Deuteronomy 8:2-3,14b-16a: “Do not forget the Lord your God.”

_________________________________________________________
WHO SUPPORTED AND WHO OPPOSED SAME-SEX MARRIAGE?

For the supporters of the Court Case there are eight pages of single spaced, tightly
packed paragraphs of Amicus Curiae individuals and groups. Included in the individuals
are several legislators:

Remcho, Johansen & Purcell, (law firm used by Gov. Schwarzenegger) James C. Harrison, Thomas A. Willis and Kari Krogseng for Senators Elaine Alquist, Ellen Corbett, Christine Kehoe, Sheila Kuehl, Carole Migden and Darrell Steinberg and: Assembly members Noreen Evans, Loni Hancock, Jared W. Huffman, Dave Jones, John Laird, Mark Leno, Sally J. Lieber, Fiona Ma, Anthony J. Portantino and Lori Saldana as Amici Curiae on behalf of Plaintiffs and Respondents.

Several pages of listings of churches: mostly every state branch of the Unitarian Universalist organization (indivisable from the ACLU), Metropolitan Community churches, a large smattering of Presbyterian and Episcopal and United Church of Christ groups. One. A woman UUA member, Rev. Diane Miller, PhD, of the Walnut Creek branch is listed as one of the attorneys for the Respondents or Plaintiffs. (Those who spoke before the Court in opposition to the marriage case are called Appellants)

Numerous non-profit and public policy organizations (as well as main line churches). It would seem here our tax dollars, given in support of these groups, are being turned against us. One organization - California Church Impact is an umbrella group for dozens of pseudo faith based and secular organizations such as Planned Parenthood, La Raza, Also California Council of Churches along with quite a few Jewish Congregations and service groups. Also the NAACP is listed here.

The listing for Appellants comprise two and one-half pages of names and include the Thomas More Society, Knights of Columbus, Judicial Watch, Claremont Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, Kenneth Starr, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, California Catholic conference, Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays.

The list of officially recognized attorneys representing Appellants are:

Alliance Defense Fund, Jay Alan Sekulow, Liberty Counsel, Campaign for California Families; and, this will bring a chuckle, Bill Lockyer, Jerry Brown and numerous state officials who are pretty much compelled to uphold and defend the current state findings.
_______________________

In the 5-27-08 edition of the Contra Costa Times, pg A6, is a bizarre story entitled: California Supreme Court to hear lesbian insemination case.” It seems that about 8 years ago a lesbian was being given fertility treatments by the North Coast Women’s Care Medical Group. However, this group balked at the patient’s request for artificial insemination which she and the Lambda Legal Group (part of ACLU) believe she was entitled to under anti-civil rights discrimination legislation. The Lambda attorney, Jennifer Pizer, states that “There is confusion among many health care providers who believe doctors have the freedom to pick and choose their patients.” Apparently the California Medical Association and Kaiser Foundation Health Plan have joined the brief and Amicus Curiae-friends of the court.

I believe that this is pertinent to the marriage case and to any future state supreme court involvement in the homosexual communities interests. The so-called rights to homosexuals to marry may well go the way of abortion and probably euthanasia if that ever passes. Abortion, in the beginning, was only for the few hard cases. Now its wide open and every business and hospital and religious group is blackmailed with fear of losing their tax support if they don’t provide or refer for abortions. Religious tenets have been compromised.

A 2003 lengthy report printed in The Historian entitled: Model City: The war on poverty, race relations, and Catholic social activism in 1960’s Pittsburg, details the capitulation of the Catholic Diocese of Pittsburg, Pa., to an alliance between the church and Planned Parenthood in order to maintain public funding.

Once again, it falls to the Catholics, Evangelicals and Christians everywhere to hold the line. This state Supreme Court marriage Case forcing the state to comply in an unholy alliance with humanism will only be the beginning of the breakdown in yet another tradition value.

-Camille
comment on this article

Notice: All comments are moderated. Your comment will appear once approved.

*
To prove you're a person (not a spam script), type the security word shown in the picture.
Anti-Spam Image

 
 
Take away God, all respect for civil laws, all regard for even the most necessary institutions disappears; justice is scouted; the very liberty that belongs to the law of nature is trodden underfoot; and men go so far as to destroy the very structure of the family, which is the first and firmest foundation of the social structure.
- St. Pius X, Jucunda Sane, March 12, 1904