From Bryan Fischer, Idaho Values Alliance

According to the Associated Press, Bradley Stowell (below right), a 36-year-old man with a history of sexually abusing more than two dozen minors, has been released from prison and, according to Idaho’s Sex Offender Registry, is now living in Boise at 1703 S. Jackson St., near the intersection of Overland Road and Roosevelt Street, one block east of the Hillcrest Country Club.

He was convicted in 1998 of the molestation of two brothers, who were attending a Boy Scout camp in eastern Idaho where Stowell was serving as a camp counselor. Although according to state law he could have - and should have - been sent away for up to 25 years, he was out of prison soon enough to violate his probation in 2005 (for viewing pornography and hanging around with children) and be sent back to a prison for a 2-to-14 year stretch. But he served just three years of that sentence, and was released despite the recommendation of a hearing officer that he is still a risk and should remain behind bars.

Last December, Stowell’s hearing officer “strongly” recommended that Stowell be denied parole, and added these ominous words: “If Mr. Stowell is released into society, he will simply victimize more young and innocent children in Idaho. To protect the parents and children of Idaho, Mr. Stowell’s continued incarceration remains vital.”

As a side note, this tragic incident confirms that the Boy Scouts are absolutely right to “discriminate” against homosexuals who want to serve as Scout leaders. The rate of pedophilia among homosexuals is up to sixteen times as high as among heterosexuals (homosexuals comprise just 3% of the population but are responsible for between 34% and 40% of all instances of child sexual abuse), and the BSA has a right and a responsibility to protect the young boys under its care from predatory adults.

If the Democrat Party, Boise Mayor David Bieter, Republican Sen. Tim Corder, and the Idaho Human Rights Commission have their way next year, another effort will be made to provide special protections on the basis of “sexual orientation” and “gender identity,” putting the Boy Scouts directly in the crosshairs of radical homosexual activists. If such a law passes, the BSA in Idaho will be hauled into court for making any effort to protect the young boys in their care from homosexual predators like Bradley Stowell.

Bottom line: Stowell has already been released from prison twice in less than a decade for committing unspeakable crimes against children.

As the father of the two Scouts said, “Three years in prison does not compensate for 10 years of molestation and terror.”

Idaho still does not have a mandatory minimum sentence for a first-time sex crime against a child. “Jessica’s Law” statutes (named for Jessica Lunsford, right, raped and murdered at age nine) in many states now impose a minimum 25-year sentence on any adult who is convicted for the first time of violating the sexual innocence of a child.

And as Stowell’s case illustrates, perpetrators are rarely caught and convicted for their first offense. Stowell himself admits that he had victimized two dozen other children before finally being caught and convicted. Each pedophile who receives his first conviction has almost certainly left a trail of other victims, damaged for life psychologically, emotionally, spiritually, and physically, in his wake.

But Idaho lawmakers, beginning with the governor, resist passing a Jessica’s Law in Idaho for one reason and one reason alone: money. The administration estimates it would cost $279 million over the next 25 years to implement a Jessica’s Law here, primarily due to the need for more prison space.

But $279 million is only slightly more than the $240 million in increased funding the governor claims we need for just one year of road-building in the Gem State.

In other words, if just one year’s funding for roads is directed into the prison system, the Jessica’s Law funding issue will be largely resolved.

I remain convinced that most of Idaho’s moms and dads would gladly dodge potholes for an extra year to see their children protected from the likes of Bradley Stowell. And the parents of his next victims - and according to his hearing officer, there will be more - will be outraged that Idaho’s public officials cared more about pavement than kids.

Please call Governor Butch Otter today at (208) 334-2100 with a simple, courteous and firm message: “It’s time for Jessica’s Law in Idaho.” You may email him at governor@gov.idaho.gov.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

By Richard Larsen

One of the side affects of a horrendously out-of-control county budget is the fact that the Assessor’s office has to generate the tax revenue to pay for it. With apparent questionable operations and the lack of ethical guidelines and competence previously characteristic of the Assessor’s office, the County has been able to generate the necessary property valuations to meet the budgetary demands of a 30% increase in the County budget this year.

This past week I’ve visited with dozens of individuals who have had dealings with the Assessor’s office, and the emerging picture is downright ugly. Having been run with competence and fairness for years under the leadership of Diane Bilyeu, it is now a veritable cess pool of cronyism, incompetent leadership, retribution against taxpayers, and unethical operations.

Since Jo Lynn Anderson took the helm at the Assessor’s office, the department has steadily declined in professionalism and competence. According to the State Tax Commission, the office is out of compliance with state guidelines, and it appears it will be so again this year. After two years of being out of compliance, the state can intervene to remedy the situation and the County can lose State revenue. That appears likely to occur.

Our current Assessor and her assistants, “the management,” have refused repeated offers to receive management training to improve operations. She came into the office with no management or assessment experience other than drawing maps for 35 years for the department. Consequently, the de facto managers of the office are her assistants. Jo Lynn also no longer attends Idaho Association of County Assessor’s meetings since they sometimes go into Executive Session where only Assessors can attend, and since Jo Lynn has no functioning knowledge of the appraisal business, she won’t attend those without her assistants.

Much of the problem seems to be the hostile work environment that the management has created. The professional appraisers who are or have been there have been coerced to perform unethical adjustments to assessments contrary to standards of the industry. The appraisers’ reluctance to make such adjustments created significant tension between them and management, and has resulted in the loss of all but two certified real property appraisers and one manufactured home appraiser, where there should be at least seven altogether. The Assessor has hired unqualified friends and political supporters who draw pay at the high end of their scale. The Assessor brags that the reason they receive such high compensation is because she brought in so much revenue for the County last year.

The Assessor’s office is required to abide by the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP) developed by the Appraisal Standards Board (ASB). These standards mandate equitable and ethical appraisal of property values. Yet my research consistently turned up examples of excessive valuations next to properties virtually unaffected by reassessment, in spite of more improvements made to the neighboring properties. Also contrary to USPAP standards, if the Assessor’s office can’t gain access to a residential property, management has instructed department appraisers to value the property with a half-finished basement. When the reluctant appraisers were told to engage in these unethical practices, the issue was forced by telling them they have to do it “because I’m management.”

Commercial assessments are now being done by an appraiser not trained or experienced in commercial appraisal. This has created profound inequity in assessments in similar properties throughout the county, significantly higher than similar properties in neighboring cities.

When the rare successful appeal of an assessment rescinds the Assessor’s valuation, an attitude of retribution is assumed. Within earshot of many witnesses, a member of the management team told one taxpayer who was successful in his appeal, “We’ll get you next time you son-of-a-b****.” And to another, “You got me this time, but we’ll get even.” One of them, after a successful appeal by a residential taxpayer, inquired “How quickly can I go after (taxpayers’ name) again?” Management demanded a $20,000 higher assessment on a residential property declaring, “He’s a tax crybaby and he needs to learn a lesson.”

We all saw the headlines earlier this week of how the Assessor’s office is attempting to “tax-rape” ON Semiconductor. This is unacceptable, and all too characteristic of how the Assessor’s office now operates. If something isn’t done immediately to remedy the situation, Bannock County will be decimated. Retirees will be forced out of their homes, residents forced to relocate outside of the county, and businesses forced to close their doors because of the exorbitant tax rates. It would be disastrous if ON closed shop here because of property taxes. And we’re dreaming if we think new businesses will be willing to locate here when they get a whiff of what’s happening with property taxes.

I don’t think we can wait for two more years when the Assessor’s term ends. It’s time for a recall and time to clean up the Assessor’s Office!

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

FRESH DAWN FOR IDAHO GOP: SEMANKO JUMPS INTO RACE FOR CHAIRMAN

Former congressional candidate Norm Semanko sent a widely distributed email out last night indicating that he will allow his name to be placed in nomination for the chairmanship of the Idaho Republican Party at this weekend’s state convention in Sandpoint.

He has, correctly in my view, determined that current chairman Kirk Sullivan does not have the support necessary to be re-elected. Despite the frantic and occasionally heavy-handed tactics of the governor’s office and others to prop Sullivan up, his support among grassroots Republicans has evaporated.

The grassroots wants closed primaries, and have made that abundantly clear by repeated votes that should have been binding on Mr. Sullivan’s actions, but were not. Thumbing his nose at his own party faithful, Sullivan has obstructed every effort to close the primaries, including delaying obligatory legal action long enough to make sure no ruling could be issued until after this weekend’s GOP state convention.

He even had the audacity to declare in a televised interview on primary night that he remains unconvinced that a closed primary is a good idea, as if the decision was his to make, once again displaying an elitist disdain for the will of the people that has infuriated the party faithful.

GOP headliners have been planning all along to attempt to reverse the party rule on closed primaries at this year’s convention, and I expect that effort will now collapse with Semanko’s announcement. The party faithful have made it abundantly clear that they are insistent on closing party primaries, and I believe Semanko will honor their decision.

Sullivan has further angered social conservatives in the party by making efforts to remove God and pro-family planks from the state GOP platform.

Indications are that Sullivan will refuse to step aside, and a loss to Semanko at the state convention would be an embarrassing public defeat not only for him for the entire party establishment, which has expended its not inconsiderable resources in what is likely to prove an unsuccessful attempt to prop him up.

A Sullivan victory at the state convention - by best accounts an unlikely prospect - would be sure to fracture the party and tempt many disgruntled conservatives to disengage from the party altogether.

The smartest and wisest course of action would be for the governor to ask Sullivan to step down in the interest of party unity in the present and party effectiveness in the future.

Word on the street is that Semanko may receive some high profile endorsements today from leading conservatives in the party, which is likely to seal Sullivan’s defeat.

Should Rod Beck step aside in deference to Semanko, as he has indicated he will, the path will be clear for Semanko to be elected to the position of party chair, perhaps by acclamation, which would serve as the first step on the road to restoring party unity.

Semanko is an unapologetic fiscal and social conservative, is universally well-liked, and will make sure that everybody plays by the rules and is treated fairly and evenhandedly, whether they are party commanders or foot soldiers. This will ensure a level playing field for all and relieve the agitation among conservatives who watched as Sullivan blockaded the clear will of party regulars, refused to enforce party rules in order to help his favored candidates for office, and blocked others from full participation in the party process.

Semanko’s election to the post of party chairman will represent a clear and unambiguous victory for conservative principles in the party, and a major step toward returning Idaho’s GOP to its fundamental principles of fiscal and social conservatism.

There is still time for the Idaho GOP to avoid the catastrophe that has befallen the party at the national level, which has lost power and credibility because it has abandoned conservative principles of governance.

This convention may be the last and best chance for conservatives to regain leadership of the Republican Party in the Gem State and return it to its roots.

The possibility now exists that the Idaho GOP, from the top down, can once again become the advocate for smaller government, lower taxes, fiscal restraint and family values that Idaho citizens need and deserve.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

By Bryan Fischer, Idaho Values Alliance

The bona fides of the Idaho Human Rights Commission, which claims to be all about equal treatment for everyone, are abut to be put to the test.

The IHRC brought a bill this past session, sponsored by Republican Sen. Tim Corder, which would have threatened severe punishment to any employer who would make non-normative sexual behavior or cross-dressing in issue in employment decisions.

What the HRC has yet to address, to my knowledge, is how it will handle a complaint issued against a lesbian who is being charged with sexual harassment on the job.

We are about to find out.

Janet Crapo, a former city employee in Hauser, a 670-person lakeside town in northern Idaho, has filed a formal complaint with the IHRC, accusing a member of the City Council, Carmen Miller, of recruiting her for a city job and then retaliating against her when she declined Miller’s lesbian advances.

The two met at a fitness class, and Crapo was soon offered a job by Miller, who said the job would be terrific as long Crapo would “play the game,” a phrase which Miller refused to clarify.

Shortly after Crapo took the job, Miller began visiting her at work, bringing lunch to her or offering to take her out. She began showing Crapo pictures of herself in a bikini during a body-building competition in Hawaii.

The harassment, according to the complaint, included home phone calls, questions about sexual orientation and other sexually inappropriate comments.

Said Crapo, “I was so uncomfortable being around Ms. Miller, I would come home from work and cry or tell my husband that I did not want to go back because I was so uncomfortable.”

She complained to the then-mayor and the city council president, apparently to no effect.

The employee, a married mother of two, finally quit her job after 15 months of such treatment, writing in her letter of resignation that she could not “handle the stress any longer due to the harassment.”

The HRC, which gets almost $1 million a year of your tax money to push the homosexual agenda in Idaho, claims on its website that, “Our commission works toward ensuring that all people within the state are treated with dignity and respect in their places of employment.”

Janet Crapo is about to discover whether “all people” includes heterosexuals who are sexually harassed by homosexuals.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

From David Ripley, Idaho Chooses Life

The very close win by Justice Horton on Tuesday represents a narrow escape for Idaho families.

We need only watch the evening news to see the disaster being constructed by judicial revolutionaries in California and New York to realize the magnitude of trouble committed liberals on the bench can bring to quiet, unsuspecting villages.

John Bradbury, a closet liberal, nearly pulled off a startling upset.

His television ads were brilliantly manipulative. He plugged into conservative anger over the manipulation by Idaho’s elites of the judicial election process. Bradbury hoped to focus conservative anger at Horton – a beneficiary of the appointment game that has been out of control for several years now. And it almost worked.

With over 149,000 votes cast on Tuesday, Bradbury lost by just 196 votes.

He would be getting ready for a pretty new robe if it weren’t for the diligence of our friend, Pastor Bryan Fischer, at the Idaho Values Alliance. We have partnered with him for several years on the Gem State Voter Guide – and it was Bradbury’s answers to this year’s survey which provided the dimmest insight into exactly how Judge Bradbury would reign from the Supreme Court.

While there were very limited resources to get the word out about Bradbury, the fact is enough conservatives learned that he was hard-core judicial activist from the Voter Guide to make good our narrow escape.

This situation puts a focus on how essential the Voter Guide project is, and to the need for meaningful reform of our judicial election process. Idaho’s legislative leaders must pay greater attention to this problem in coming sessions.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

From Bryan Fischer, Idaho Values Alliance

The fitness of Kirk Sullivan to continue as the chairman of the Idaho Republican Party has again been called into question by late-breaking developments in the primary campaign for legislative seats in District 21.

These races featured conservative incumbent legislators - Sen. Russ Fulcher, Rep. Cliff Bayer, and Rep. John Vander Woude - facing off against challengers Steve Ricks, Jefferson West, and Richard Jarvis. The same troika of challengers spent $2,000 on an Idaho Statesman ad attacking Idaho Chooses Life for endorsing the incumbents, falsely accusing ICL’s Executive Director, David Ripley, of implying that they hold pro-abortion views.

Last week, a form letter, written on official party letterhead, was mailed widely in District 21, arriving in mailboxes on Wednesday or Thursday, and giving the distinct impression that the Republican Party had officially endorsed the challengers in those hotly contested races.

No less than three times the incumbents are smeared as members of the “good old boy” network and the reader is bludgeoned no less than nine times - nine! - with the phrase “special interests” to imply that it was the party’s official position that Fulcher, Bayer and Vander Woude are in the bag for powerful lobbyists.

Although each letter was identical in content, different committeemen signed them, apparently sending the letters to party members in their own precincts, thus giving the impression that they had written the letter themselves. According to the note at the bottom of each letter, the mailing was “gladly paid (for) by the Ricks for Senator Committee.”

Sullivan was immediately contacted by concerned party members, and by candidates whose fortunes would be directly affected by the false impression created by the letter. However, Sullivan failed to return phone calls for four days, and then weakly promised only that he would look into the matter. (An IVA phone call to Sullivan’s office yesterday was not returned.)

According to one source, Sullivan claimed on Saturday that he did not know how to get hold of Mr. Ricks, even though his home and work numbers were accessible in seconds via the internet. By then, of course, it was too late to protect the integrity of the electoral process.

Tuesday evening, Sullivan made vague noises about initiating legal action against those who misrepresented the party by sending the letter, but the threat appears to be empty and toothless saber rattling on his part.

Contrast this with Mr. Sullivan’s actions 2 ½ years ago, when a similar missive had left some with the impression that the party was endorsing Brandi Swindell in her run for a seat on the Boise City Council. He wasted no time in issuing a public clarification, distancing the Party from Ms. Swindell’s campaign so fast it’d give you a nose bleed.

Yet in this case, he dithered around for four days and then did nothing, despite the fact that the false impression created by the letter was likely to have a material impact on a campaign.

While Fulcher and Bayer survived their primary challenges, Sullivan’s failure to take decisive clarifying action likely cost John Vander Woude his seat in the legislature. Vander Woude lost his race against Jarvis by a scant 55 votes, and it is entirely possible that enough primary voters were influenced by the deceptive nature of the letter into thinking that Vander Woude was being officially opposed by his own party.

If only 28 voters changed their minds about Vander Woude based on the letter, that would have been enough to deny him a seat that should rightfully be his.

Add to this that any number of Democrats, crossing over to vote against Bill Sali (the runner-up in that race, Matt Salisbury, got an astonishing 8,000 votes more than Walt Minnick) may well have decided to create mischief in other races as long as they were meddling with the GOP ballot.

Vander Woude had a solid voting record as a pro-life, pro-family conservative during his one term in office, and thus this underhanded tactic has likely deprived Idaho families of a consistent and dependable voice and vote on social issues.

Sali’s race makes it abundantly clear that it is harmful to the prospects of conservative Republicans for the party to hold open primaries. The rank-and-file members of the GOP recognize this, and have forced the party establishment to move toward closed primaries whether they want to or not.

Sullivan has fought the grassroots on the primary issue every step of the way, and the results from District 21, ending in the unseating of a social conservative, will only foment further unrest among the already agitated GOP grassroots.

Word on the street is that the Central Committee in Twin Falls cast a unanimous no-confidence vote in Sullivan’s leadership and similar no-confidence votes are scheduled for or have already been held in Cassia and Minidoka counties, among others. The floor seems to be falling out from under the current chairman.

Sullivan will face a challenge for party chairmanship at the state convention next month, and this District 21 debacle is certainly not going to help his chances. The party elites have rallied around Sullivan, and have used heavy-handed pressure in a number of ways to boost his chances of re-election.

But the natives are restless, and the current alternative, Rod Beck, who is leading the charge to close the GOP primaries, has repeatedly locked horns with the party elites over the issue and would be the establishment’s worst nightmare.

One possible outcome? The party elites, seeing the handwriting on the wall, may ask Sullivan to step aside and appeal to Norm Semanko to step forward as a compromise candidate. Beck is prepared to support Semanko’s bid for the post, but Semanko, out of a concern for party unity, has put his plans to run for the chairmanship on hold.

Semanko is universally well-liked, and if the party is looking for a unifier in the wake of unhappiness with Sullivan’s leadership, Semanko may be just the man for the job.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

The task of sorting through all the candidates with their accompanying political baggage is daunting at best, and impossible at worst. Because I receive numerous inquiries for voting information each election cycle, this post will detail my personal voting preferences.

I do not claim to have any preternatural knowledge of issues or candidates. However, because of my personal experiences and connections, combined with my addiction to political news, I usually have sufficient information to form an opinion. Over the years, these opinions have overwhelmingly been proven correct.

I will use for my reference the Bonneville County sample ballot, which once again shows us that Democrats have very few - if any - primary races. Their presidential selections have already been made in CLOSED caucus back in February, so I don’t know why their candidates appear on the ballot. We can count on many if not all of them to vote in the OPEN Republican primary in order to sway voting towards the most liberal Republicans, who, in many cases, were originally Democrats. (Remember former Speaker of the Idaho House, Bruce Newcomb? He was originally his county Democrat chairman, but could not get elected until he put the all-important “R” behind his name on the ballot. For actual documents proving Democrats purposefully vote Republican, see GrassRootsIdaho.)

I strongly urge all voters to check out the responses given on the Idaho Values Alliance Voters Guide.

So, let’s skip to the Republican side of the ballot.

For United States Senator, my choice is Fred Adams, of Idaho Falls. Jim Risch simply has too much baggage. I cannot vote for him under any circumstances. In the general election, I will be voting for independent candidate Rex Rammell.

For US House of Representatives for Idaho’s Second District, my choice is Gregory Nemitz. This is a man who is founded on constitutional principles, a claim incumbent Mike Simpson simply cannot make.

In District 31, the gerrymandered district stretching some 200 miles from the Teton Valley to the Utah border, otherwise known as the “east coast of Idaho”, I endorse Tom Loertscher for Representative Seat B. I have no preference for Seat A.

In District 32, I endorse Erik Simpson for Representative Seat A. He is young, energetic, and conservative. Ann Rydalch is tired, stuck in the past, and has a record of raising taxes.

In District 33, I recommend giving Kenneth Walton, the perennial opponent of Bart Davis, an opportunity to serve in the legislature. Bart Davis has risen to leadership in the Idaho Senate, but fails on so many fronts to deliver on conservative issues. I also consider a number of his positions and actions to have been unethical.

For Bonneville County Commissioner, I endorse Dave Radford, a man who has proven pro-life credentials, and a love of the constitution. His challenger, Harold Jones, is also a good man, but a bit of an unknown quantity and too inexperienced.

For Bonneville County Sheriff I endorse Paul Wilde, not because I know him well, but because he is highly recommended by recently-retired Sheriff Byron Stommell, a man I respect.

For Supreme Court Justice, I recommend the incumbent, Joel Horton. I vigorously object to the manner in which he became the incumbent. Justice Linda Copple Trout purposely retired mid-term to allow her replacement to be appointed by the Judicial Council rather than allow her position to be filled as an open seat, completely at the whim of the supposedly uninformed voters of Idaho. However, in this case Judge Horton has revealed himself to be a strong supporter of the Idaho Constitution, rather than a fan of judicial activism, as reported in the Idaho Values Alliance Voter Guide.

Though I do not have the opportunity to vote in Idaho’s First Congressional District race, I wholeheartedly endorse Rep. Bill Sali. This is a man who has been a champion of the unborn, lower taxes, smaller government, and the US Constitution since his days in the Idaho House.

And that completes my list of endorsements. I look forward to receiving your comments in response.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

From Bryan Fischer, Idaho Values Alliance

Federal Judge Lynn Winmill has a well-deserved reputation as an activist judge. Not too long ago, he trampled on the Boise Rescue Mission’s First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion by telling staff how to run their ministry even though the Mission does not receive so much as a nickel in taxpayer monies. Further, Winmill has struck down pro-life legislation seemingly out of force of habit. Yesterday, however, this federal judge blinked in a showdown with the Idaho Supreme Court.

Winmill rejected a lawsuit brought by some Idaho public schools against the Idaho Supreme Court, who wanted Winmill to order the Idaho Court to dictate a remedy in a school funding dispute. Winmill wrote what is for him an amazingly restrained opinion, saying, “Federal courts have no authority to direct state courts or their judicial officers in the performance of their duties.”

The back-story here, I believe, is that the Idaho Supreme Court fully intended to ignore any ruling that Winmill handed down that would have directed it to do anything. Additionally, only two of the five justices who made the original ruling are still on the Court, so the reality is that the Court doesn’t have the quorum of three necessary to follow his dictates even if they were inclined to do so.

Further, the Idaho Supreme Court had dismissed the suit, meaning that from a legal standpoint there is no existing case for Winmill to rule on, which gave the Idaho Court another reason to simply ignore an order from him.

It looks as though Winmill was prescient enough to recognize that he wasn’t going to be able to order the Idaho Supremes around, and backed out of the case in a face-saving move. The reality is that, if the Idaho Supreme Court ignored his ruling, there’s not a thing he could have done about it. The separation of powers doctrine denies any enforcement power to the judiciary, so he had no one he could compel to enforce his ruling.

Kudos to the Idaho Supreme Court for refusing to be coerced or intimidated by the prospect of a federal judge unconstitutionally throwing his weight around. The reality is that, if federal judges intrude where they have no constitutional authority to be, there is nothing except the frayed good will of the states that prompts them to comply with such unauthorized rulings.

The Idaho Supreme Court has struck a blow for the 10th Amendment, state sovereignty and liberty all in one fell swoop, and perhaps shown the rest of the states in the Union the way forward to reclaim rights that are properly theirs under the federal Constitution. If more branches of Idaho state government start showing the moxie of the Idaho Supreme Court, happier and freer days may be ahead for all Idahoans.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

From Bryan Fischer, Idaho Values Alliance

Yesterday’s California Supreme Court ruling overturning the state’s ban on gay marriage is just another catastrophic example of judicial activism on steroids.

Four black-robed oligarchs callously overrode the expressed will of 4,618,673 Californians who voted in 2000 to define marriage exclusively as the union of one man and one woman. When four people can ignore the democratically enacted decision of 4 million people, we no longer have a republic at all. This is a form of tyranny, plain and simple.

Observation: the Court believes that majority rule is good enough for judges - four beats three - but not good enough for the people. Only an out-of-control judiciary can believe that four beats four million.

The Court ruled that a ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional, even though the California Constitution says nary a word about same-sex marriage. In other words, the “emanations from penumbras” cobra has once again reared its poisonous head.

A dissenting judge correctly wrote, “Nothing in our Constitution, express or implicit, compels the majority’s startling conclusion that the age-old understanding of marriage - an understanding recently confirmed by an initiative law - is no longer valid.”

The truth of the matter is that the California Constitution says nothing - that’s zip, nada, zilch - about the right of same-sex couples to marry. Further, the state’s marriage law, enacted by initiative with over 61% of the vote, is constitutionally immune from repeal by the Legislature.

The judge continued, “If there is to be a further sea change in the social and legal understanding of marriage itself, that evolution should occur by similar democratic means. The majority forecloses this ordinary democratic process, and, in doing so, oversteps its authority.”

He added, “In reaching this decision, I believe, the majority violates the separation of powers, and thereby commits profound error.” This decision, he wrote, is an “exercise in legal jujitsu.”

Observation: in violating the separation of powers, enshrined in the California Constitution, the Court has itself violated the Constitution. If anybody has done anything unconstitutional here, it is clearly the Court, not the people of California, who followed the Constitution to the letter in its prescribed method for enacting law by initiative.

Lincoln’s question at Gettysburg was whether a government “of the people, by the people, and for the people” could long endure. The answer from California: not so much.. California is now a government “of the judges, by the judges, and for the judges,” and such a government will last as long as a meekly compliant people allow it to.

Governor Schwarzenegger has submissively and weakly bowed the knee to the state’s newly self-appointed masters (where is the Terminator when we need him?), and says he won’t fight their ruling, even though it trashes every known concept of the separation of powers.

This whole affair naturally raises the question: why does California even bother with a legislature or a governor? What’s the point, when every important public policy decision is made by four judges who weren’t even elected to office and therefore feel no accountability to the people?

Worse, California has no residency requirement for marriage, meaning in as little as 30 days we may see a stream of homosexual couples returning to the Gem State waving their “marriage” licenses and shopping for a court which will insist Idaho recognize their union.

A gay-rights attorney exultantly says she expects “gays from around the country to flock to the state to wed.”

Idaho’s Constitution prohibits the legal recognition of such relationships, but as California demonstrates, even one sympathetic judge can turn a constitution into a meaningless scrap of paper. This makes the Idaho election for a seat on our state’s Supreme Court as important as it possibly can be. It is imperative that Idahoans elevate to the bench a judge who believes in a strict construction of the Constitution and the law.

Idahoans can equip themselves to cast an intelligent and informed vote in this election by going to the Gem State Voter Guide here.

Massachusetts, the only other state which recognizes same-sex marriage, at least has a provision in its state law that prohibits an out-of-state couple from getting married there if the marriage would not be legal in their home state. California has no such restriction.

Pro-family Californians have collected enough signatures to put a marriage amendment on the ballot this November. A pro-homosexual Attorney General (Jerry Brown, affectionately, accurately, and formerly known as “Governor Moonbeam”) is now responsible to validate those signatures, and opportunities for mischief therefore abound. Anti-family government bureaucrats in Oregon managed to creatively invalidate enough signatures to keep a similar measure off its ballot this year.

Further, I believe a previously unheard-of option may soon be exercised in California. (Remember you read it here first.)

I expect to see the California State Supreme Court issue a ruling that its own state Constitution is unconstitutional.

Here’s what I mean. Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that Californians pass the marriage amendment this November, thereby making a ban on same-sex marriage a part of the Constitution.

But wait, the gay lobby will say, the Court has already ruled that it’s unconstitutional to ban gay marriage in California! If you try to amend the Constitution to prohibit gay marriage, they will argue in court, you are trying to do something that the Court has already decided is forbidden by the Constitution.

It’s unconstitutional, they will say, even to try to amend the Constitution to ban same-sex marriage. Expect a lawsuit along these lines, either before or immediately after the election.

There is no reason, given the activist bent of the Court, why such a legal effort wouldn’t be successful, meaning that even the plain language of a properly enacted amendment won’t be enough to insulate Californians from judges determined to impose their own view of social policy on the rest of us.

Forget the words of our Founders. Forget the words of Alexander Hamilton, who said, “The will of the people makes the essential principle of the government.”

Forget the words of Thomas Jefferson, who said, “Try every provision of our Constitution, and see if it hangs directly on the will of the people.”

Forget the words of James Madison, who said, “The past frequency of wars [is traced] to a will in the government independent of the will of the people.”

Repressive tyranny is alive and well in America. Its uniform is a black robe and its weapon of choice a brandished gavel.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

From Bryan Fischer, Idaho Values Alliance

Michigan passed a marriage amendment in 2004 co-authored by our good friend Gary Glenn of the American Family Association of Michigan.

As Idaho’s 2006 marriage amendment does, it prohibits government recognition of homosexual relationships for the purpose of employment benefits.

The Michigan Supreme Court ruled yesterday that the amendment does not allow for the extension of taxpayer-funded benefits to the unmarried “domestic partners” of state and municipal employers.

The Idaho Attorney General’s office has already concluded that the Moscow City Council’s recently enacted policy of granting health insurance benefits to “domestic partnerships” - widely heralded in the national gay press as a triumph for the homosexual agenda - is contrary to the Idaho constitution, and said that the city would lose if its policy were challenged in court.

The Moscow City Council defiantly reaffirmed its policy after the AG’s office issued its findings, essentially daring the Attorney General to take the city to court. If Attorney General Lawrence Wasden does not initiate legal action against Moscow, the city is likely to get away with this flagrant disregard for the constitution, and it will not be long before other state entities - the University of Idaho, Boise State University, the city of Boise - follow suit.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.