Judicial Tyranny and California Lunacy

June 2008

Dear Friends:

What a shocking lurch to the left has occurred in the state of California where two imperious courts have recently forced themselves and their biases into the institution of the family. The first of these unfortunate decisions was issued by the Los Angeles-based Second District Court of Appeal, which declared it illegal for parents without teaching licenses to home school their own flesh and blood.1 Three judges based this ruling on charges against a single family whom they considered to be dysfunctional and abusive. From this one case, they ruled that uncredentialed parents who home school their children are in violation of the law. The implications are that the state’s estimated 200,000 home-schooled students are being harmed by the efforts of their parents. Does that make sense to anyone? Obviously not, but the state’s home-schooling parents were told they were acting in violation of the law.

Consider the arrogance of this court. It conducted no investigation of home schools nor evaluated the children who are being educated at home. The facts were obviously irrelevant. The judges who issued this ruling believe they know more about parenting techniques and the education of children than the mothers and fathers who are sacrificing mightily to raise them properly. We have to ask, what transformed these three judges, who are lawyers, after all, into authorities on the issues at hand? Have they ever worked with children or completed graduate degrees in child development or psychology or pediatrics or education or family life? I doubt it.

They might not even be parents, or if they are, who knows how effectively they did the job when their children were young. Regardless of their qualifications or lack of relevant training, they reviewed this one family and decreed that home-schooling parents would be required to either funnel their kids into government schools or enroll them in potentially cost-prohibitive private institutions. The only other option for home-schooling parents would have been to expend the money and time necessary to get a teaching license. This is a dramatic example of judicial tyranny in action, and today’s legal system seems to cherish it. Political power is a highly addictive drug.

Well, the court decided a week later to take another look at its hasty decision, perhaps because of public outcry. It subsequently invited six professional organizations and governmental agencies to submit amicus briefs (or “friend of the court” position papers). They included the California Superintendent of Public Instruction, the California Department of Education, the Los Angeles Unified School District and three California teacher unions. You’ll notice that each of these invited groups is identified with government schools. The majority of them have opposed home education. The court did not specifically invite a response from the Home School Legal Defense Association or any other home-school organizations. It would appear that the court is seeking to stack the deck. Judicial tyranny continues.

That is why it would be helpful for the judges to know your views about their ruling. They are H. Walter Croskey, Joan D. Klein and Patti S. Kitching. They can be reached at the Ronald Reagan State Building, 300 South Spring Street, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90013. Phone: 213-830-7000.

The second decision handed down from on high a few weeks ago was even more egregious. The California Supreme Court, by a vote of 4 to 3, overturned an electoral decision supported by 4,618,673 voters in the year 2000.2 It concerned Proposition 22, which defined marriage exclusively as being between one man and one woman. The margin of victory for this affirmation of the traditional family was 61 to 39 percent.3 There were many Californians who fought valiantly for what they believed, sacrificed to help buy advertising space and collect signatures, mobilized their fellow citizens and then went to the polls to register their preference for marriage between a man and a woman. Alas, it was all for naught. The Court sniffed, “Not so fast, common people. We hold the trump card and you lose.” Proposition 22 was trashed in a single blow.

Abraham Lincoln said during the Gettysburg Address in 1863 that ours is a system of government designed “of the people, by the people, and for the people.” It is sad to note that this concept of self-determination given to us by the Founding Fathers is no longer true, at least not in the State of California. The justices there have a better plan. I wonder how long Americans will permit themselves to be bullied and their beliefs overridden by a few powermongers in black robes. They have embarked upon a radical social experiment that carries dangerous implications for society and for generations of children yet to come. A last ditch effort to persuade the court to stay its ruling was summarily rejected by the same four judges who created same-sex “marriage” in California. Arrogance has now been heaped upon arrogance by these judicial tyrants.

The justices who imposed same-sex “marriage” on California and, by extension, on every other state in the nation, should be etched on the minds of those inside and outside the Golden State. Once again, it would be useful for you to express your opinions of the issues at hand. Members of the State Supreme Court, composing the majority in this case, are Chief Justice Ronald M. George, Justice Joyce L. Kennard, Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar and Justice Carlos R. Moreno. These four individuals can be reached at the Supreme Court of California, 350 McAllister Street, San Francisco, CA 94102-4797, and by phone at 415-865-7000. They should know that they have over-stepped their authority and that their decision will not be forgotten. Likewise, the Governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger, should hear from pro-family advocates around the country. He actually favors the same-sex ruling, after saying for years that he believes in the exclusivity of marriage between a man and a woman. Well . . . he changed his mind because the winds changed directions. You can reach him at the State Capitol Building, Sacramento, CA 95814, and by phone at 916-445-2841.

I wonder if any of my readers remember another liberal chief justice of California’s Supreme Court who incurred the wrath of angry voters? Her name was Rose Bird, and she continually defied the will of the people. For example, she cast 61 reversal votes in 61 death penalty cases despite rigorous disagreement. Finally, Californians had enough.4In 1986, she and three of her fellow justices were thrown out of office by statewide election. Off they went into oblivion. How did Rose Bird react to this rebuke by the voters? She said that the electoral result was engineered by “powerful interests” determined to “subvert the judiciary.”5 Her arrogance was breathtaking.

Has it occurred to Californians to consider what amounts to another “recall election” for the four Justices who have disregarded the institution of marriage? I believe it is worth discussing. Marriage has been honored in custom and in the law for more than 5000 years. It has thrived everywhere humankind has resided.

Marriage is not simply a Judeo-Christian concept, although it finds its origins in the Garden of Eden. The Creator said to Adam and Eve, “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh” (Genesis 2:24, NIV). That is the way it has always been. But now, four members of the California Supreme Court have come to a different conclusion. They intend to jettison the divine plan and, in so doing, have opened the door to polygamy, group marriage and who knows what else. In his daily update following the shocking ruling, Gary Bauer, president of American Values, highlighted several telling and provocative quotes related to the case. In the first one, he noted that, to their credit, three justices vigorously opposed the same-sex ruling. Writing for the minority, Justice Marvin Baxter stated prophetically:

“The majority . . . simply does not have the right to erase, then recast, the age-old definition of marriage, as virtually all societies have understood it, in order to satisfy its own contemporary notions of equality and justice. The California Constitution says nothing about the rights of same-sex couples to marry. On the contrary, as the majority concedes, our original Constitution, effective from the moment of statehood, evidenced an assumption that marriage was between partners of the opposite sex.”6

How did the ACLU perceive the victory? Exactly as you would expect. They are ecstatic. Challenges to state marriage amendments and the federal Defense of Marriage Act are coming. Here are portions of a message sent to supporters of the ACLU following the California decision:

“We won the marriage case in California. No need for hyperbole here; this is big. . . . And as The New York Times recently pointed out, the California Supreme Court is the most influential state high court in America. . . . Marriage in California will transform the discussion of marriage nationwide. . . . The fact that California is marrying same-sex couples will put considerable pressure on the rest of the country to recognize those marriages. Even more important, the rest of the country recognizes that California is America’s cultural trendsetter, that cultural change in California is usually a preview of what is to come in the rest of the United States. . . . This was a prize of inestimable value.”7

Homosexual activist Wayne Besen came up crowing:

“If same-sex marriage becomes a reality in America’s largest and most influential state — and is not overturned by a Constitutional Amendment — it will be the biggest earthquake to hit in years. The sheer number of couples who will marry (and divorce, it is California, after all), will forever change this debate. It will cause a legal mess, as many of these married couples — often with children — migrate to [other] states.”8

So, chalk up another disastrous loss for the defenders of morality and the family. There may be some good news on the horizon, however. The battle may not be over. Due to months of very hard work and sacrifice by Ron Prentice and his colleagues at the California Family Council, and a collaboration of numerous pastors including Jack Hibbs at the Calvary Chapel Chino Hills Church, Jim Garlow of Skyline Wesleyan Church, Chris Clark of East Clairemont Southern Baptist Church, Miles McPherson of The Rock Church, San Diego Auxiliary Bishop Salvatore Cordileone and other concerned Californians, there will be a state constitutional amendment on the ballot in November. Voters in the Golden State will now have the opportunity to reverse the court’s momentous decision. I am sending this urgent call to every church, every conservative family, and every supporter of marriage in the state. Organize. Plan. Give. Campaign. Talk to neighbors and friends. Get out the vote. Leave no stone unturned. Above all, pray for God’s will to be done. Everything depends on the outcome. Do not be afraid of criticism and ridicule. It goes with the territory. But what you are doing is right. I am as certain of that as anything I have said in the past 35 years.

Before closing this passionate message, let me remind you that California and the rest of the country would not be in the mess it is in if the U.S. Congress had not ignored and run from their duty to protect the institution of the family. All three presidential candidates voted against the Marriage Protection Amendment, and to my knowledge, not a one of them has uttered a word about the preservation of the traditional family. Honestly, we have to assume that they don’t give a hoot about marriage. Senator Barack Obama agrees with the decision by the Supreme Court. Senator Hillary Clinton has attempted to sidestep the issue by repeatedly saying she supports one-man, one-woman marriage, yet simultaneously asserting that it should be left to the states to decide. Senator McCain has taken basically the same position. Obviously, the states can’t protect marriage because the courts can overrule them. Senator McCain’s own state of Arizona is considering another effort to pass a constitutional amendment to protect marriage, but he has remained ominously silent in response to it. In fact, Republican leadership in the Arizona legislature has gotten cold feet and is holding up the amendment. This is an example of why a federal constitutional amendment is needed to preserve this precious and critical institution of marriage.

In 2006, numerous congressmen and senators in both parties issued press releases saying, “A constitutional amendment is not needed.” Well, as we have seen, they continue to hide behind that phony excuse. Today, California’s Supreme Court has permitted same-sex “marriage.” Tomorrow, maybe every state in the nation will have its own definition of what it means to be a family. Can you imagine being legally married in Oklahoma or Pennsylvania and not married in New Jersey or Oregon? It will create chaos in the family. New York Governor David A. Paterson recently announced that he was ordering all governmental agencies to amend and revise more than 1,300 state policies in order to recognize homosexual marriages performed elsewhere in the country.9 In other words, it’s technically still illegal for homosexuals to marry in New York, but if they are legally wed elsewhere, their marriages will be just as valid and accepted as the heterosexual unions among its state residents.

We intend to fight for what we believe, and especially for the family, in the days between now and the national election. As an organization, Focus on the Family remains committed not only to preserving marriage, but also to fighting so-called hate crimes can provide. I know the economy is shaky and many friends are unable to give. If that is your situation, we ask that you pray for us and the institution of the family. Please do not contribute to us until you have met your obligations to your local church. As always, it is the front line of defense for the Gospel and the defense of righteousness.

Blessings to you and yours. We hope to see you in Colorado Springs sometime during the summer months. That would be a pleasure.

Your friend in Christ,

James C. Dobson, Ph.D.
Founder and Chairman

P.S. There are two other recent examples of social craziness that you should know about. First, the far-reaching nature of homosexual activism was recently highlighted when it was announced that fast-food giant McDonald’s — a chain that spends millions of dollars marketing itself to families — has become a “corporate partner” of the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce. The next time you find yourself in one of their restaurants, I wish you would let management know how disgusted you are with this new affiliation. As for me, I will patronize other food establishments. To sign a national petition of objection, please log on to http://www.frc.org/content/mcdonalds-is-funding-homosexual-activism--and-im-not-lovin-it-1.

Brace yourself for the second shocking development. The far left now controls the Colorado State Legislature, which is becoming similar to the radical legislature in California. The Colorado version has now come up with revolutionary changes in the law that are breathtaking. Consider this: Senate Bill 200 was passed recently and quickly signed into law by Governor Bill Ritter. It defined one’s sexual inclinations as “a person’s orientation toward heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality, or transgender status or another person’s perception thereof.” This latter term includes cross-dressers, men who self-identify as women, women who self-identify as men, and people who are in the process of deciding.

Until now, establishments open to the public have been allowed to restrict certain restrooms and locker rooms to one sex if it made sense to do so, as it almost always does. With SB 200, however, Colorado will no longer have two “sexes”; it specifies a myriad of “sexual orientations” that must be granted access to these and other facilities, upon pain of substantial civil and criminal penalties for those who deny them. Those who would attempt to protect females from this intrusion are subject to a fine of $5,000 and up to one year behind bars. Believe it or not, the owners of facilities for women could be prosecuted even for denying access to men who are dressed normally but simply “perceive” themselves to be female. How on earth could a manager or owner know what is in a man’s mind if he doesn’t reveal it by his clothing? This provision offers a great opportunity for predators to use this law as “cover” to enter intimate areas in search of young victims. I suppose Governor Ritter and liberals in the state legislature haven’t thought of that, or perhaps they don’t care! They were in such a hurry to pass SB 200 and to get it signed that they ran past all the red flags.

Restrooms are not the only problem with the new law. It adds a prohibition against discrimination in “sexual orientation” to more than 23 separate provisions of Colorado law that already prohibit discrimination in various areas of public life. Some of them threaten the religious liberties of every Christian, Jewish or Muslim business owner who operates a business on faith-based principles. A refusal to do business with someone based on a sincerely held religious belief that homosexuality is wrong would violate the law. In addition to civil fines and penalties, small-business owners can be prosecuted under the criminal laws of Colorado and spend up to one year in jail for trying to live according to their faith.

Those wishing to express their outrage to the officials responsible for this new law can reach Governor Bill Ritter at: 136 State Capitol, Denver, CO 80203-1792; phone 303/866-2471; fax 303/866-2003. State representatives and senators can be contacted by writing to: Colorado State Capitol, 200 East Colfax, Denver, CO 80203. (Only one Republican legislator voted for the bill, and only one Democrat voted against it. For a list of Colorado legislators and how they voted, please visit citizenlink.org. The Colorado Legislature is currently out of session and will not reconvene until January 2009.)

ProtectMarriage.com, a Project of California Renewal, P.O. Box 162657, Sacramento, CA 95816. Major funding by National Organization for Marriage California Committee, Fieldstead & Co., and Focus on the Family.