Get FREE BuzzFlash News Alerts

Email:  

San Diego Anti-Gay Religious Zealots Launch Judicial Crusade

BILL BERKOWITZ FOR BUZZFLASH

Better Courts Now’s candidates are on a ‘mission from God’ to transform San Diego’s court system.

If you’ve had your fill of athletes thanking God for their good fortune on the basketball court or gridiron, and/or politicians claiming that God directed them to run for public office –- think George W. Bush –- then do not read any further. If, however, you’re interested in and/or intrigued by the “Mission from God” conceit, and wondering if folks adopting that charge from on high just might be coming to your humble township, then check out what’s been happening in San Diego, California.

What may have started out as a small, almost stealth-like campaign –- similar to those that took over school boards across the country -- has evolved into a rock-em, sock-em, full-throated effort to remove four Democratic-appointed judges from Superior Court, and replace them with four bona-fide “Mission from God” Christian conservative attorneys.

The movement, called Better Courts Now, is supporting four San Diego Superior Court candidates that have the backing of “pastors, gun enthusiasts and opponents of abortion and same-sex marriages,” the Associated Press recently reported.

A banner on the front-page of the Better Courts Now (BCN) website welcoming visitors, reads: “Welcome to BetterCourtsNow.com. The most innovative approach to unifying the moral vote. Better Courts Now, is an attempt to network with you in a way that allows you to become a change agent in making judges accountable. Join the fight and let your voice be heard!”

In mid-March, Capital Weekly reported that the website “also includes testimonials from at least one person affiliated with the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), a group that has been in the center of political battles over gay marriage in California and around the country.”

"It’s important that we unify our votes so we ensure that solid men and women of high morals, who will not legislate from the bench, are elected to office," Assemblyman Joel Anderson, R-La Mesa, says in a 97-second video. Later he adds, "We are in full agreement that we need to get behind BetterCourtsNow.com."

Capital Weekly pointed out while “Anderson is probably the most recognizable person on the list [,] …. [o]ther prominent people on video page include: Steve Baldwin, who held the AD 77 seat from 1995 through 2000; Ron Prentice, San Diego chairman for the Yes on 8 Campaign; Don Hamer, a prominent black pastor in San Diego; Dean Broyles, an attorney the Western Center for Law & Policy; Brian Jones, vice mayor of Santee; and Charles Li Mandri, west coast regional director of the Thomas More Law Center.”

Dr. Jennifer Morse, the founder and president of the Ruth Institute in San Marcos, also appears on the site. According to Capital Weekly, “The Institute’s website displays prominently that it is ‘A project of the National Organization for Marriage’ [an organization founded in 2007 by Maggie Gallagher, a noted gay marriage opponent who also founded the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy (IMPP)]. The group states that it promotes ‘lifelong commitment’ and ‘big families.’ It opposes unmarried couples living together and medical treatment for minors with gender confusion. The site also states that it sponsors students' essay contests and ‘Gay marriage affects everyone’ seminars.”

“We believe our country is under assault and needs Christian values,” said Craig Candelore, a family law attorney and the founder of the Men’s Legal Center in San Diego, who is one of the group’s candidates. “Unfortunately, God has called upon us to do this only with the judiciary.”

According to AP, the election of judges -- which is on the June 8 ballot along with primaries for state offices and U.S. Senator, as well as a number of state initiatives –- is normally a “snooze-button” affair that often causes a puzzled look and a “who’s she/he” reaction from voters. This time around, however, the snooze alarm is ringing loudly as the election has been turned “into what both sides call a battle for the integrity of U.S. courts.”

Better Courts Now was founded three years ago by the late Don Hamer, San Diego County’s Zion Christian Fellowship pastor, who was a major supporter of Proposition 8 (California’s ban on same-sex marriage) and, according to AP, “vetted the [judicial] candidates before he died of a heart attack in March.” According to a post by “Christian Dem in N.C.” at Daily Kos, Hamer was “the voice of seven videos back in 2008 that claimed Obama wasn't really a Christian, including one in which he accused Obama of being a Muslim."

Hamer’s fellow pastor, Brian Hendry –- the GOP candidate for the state senate from the 40th district -- and others have carried on the work, “launching the mostly online campaign to replace the incumbent judges (Lantz Lewis, Robert Longstreth, Joel Wohlfeil and DeAnn Salcido, all Democrats) with Christian conservatives (Candelore, Bill Trask [the general counsel for a mortgage-lending firm], Larry Kincaid [an El Cajon lawyer who practices civil, criminal and family law and was an unsuccessful candidate for judge four years ago], and Harold Coleman Jr. [an Arbitrator],” AP reported.

Last week, East County magazine reported that “Better Courts Now’s candidates were not found qualified for the positions they seek by the County Bar Association.  In response, Better Courts Now has accused the Bar of ‘blatant political bias’ and noted that Larry Stanwood Johnson, chair of the Bar's Certified Family Law Specialists Committee, has solicited donations from Committee members for the incumbent judges.”

“Better Courts Now says it wants courts to be more accountable to the public,” AP reported. “But [Lantz] Lewis, [who has served twenty years on the bench] said the group appears to be seeking allegiance to its views –- not accountability.”

“I just don’t think judges should be in a situation, where they are asked, ‘Do you believe in God, abortion, gay marriage?’” Lewis said.

For Craig Candelore, a victory would be the first step toward reclaiming the culture: “If we can take our judiciary, we can take our Legislature and our executive branch.”

BILL BERKOWITZ FOR BUZZFLASH




better courts now...?

orrrrr... would "better manipulated courts now" be a better designation for this group? (smiles). I am heartened that this group is so out and proud about their ativiites and where they stand.  It proves, once and for all, that one does not have to be Islamic or Muslim to be a member of the Taliban.  I present to you readers.... the AcT Team = "American christian Talibangelicals"!!!  Saviors of their own deluded world while attempting to undermine our world and those who would disagree with their agenda.  Nahhh, I have seen enough of these reprobates in the last 30 years to last a lifetime or two, and they still make mucho noise, but fall short in the end. The BCN people are a good indciation as to why ALL citizens must be "on guard" to protect their rights, not just the right-wing banditos, heh heh heh.  Stay alert, stay poised, and read all the information gathered about this group, the Act!  We will then be safe from their hoo-haw prattling!

Our courts are already broken

I would like to know what the sitting judge's religious position or lack of. I mean we are examining the candidates but not examining the judges they are running against.
The way all these other articles are slamming Christians, it leads you to believe we want only atheist judges on the bench. And since everyone is worried about our Constitution being undermined by the "Christians", lets ask why nearly 80% of the judges in San Diego are appointed and not elected, even though the California Constitution calls for elections. The judicial system has been hijacked, and I also would urge readers to research the 4 sitting judges (being run against), criminal history and bankruptcies!


1. I hope that the readers do some of their own research, since it is very rear that we have the opportunity to elect our judges. Why? Because 77% of our judges are appointed and I do not agree with the voting recommendations made by them.
What the Incumbent judges have against them, is the fact they were appointed by a system that promotes the criminal prosecutor background to the bench, which is why 91% of our judges are ex-prosecutor. Surprisingly only 30% of the cases heard in our courts are made up of criminal matter?  The Judicial Appointment Secretary, named Sharon Majors-Lewis, just so happens to be an ex-DA prosecutor and the last 6 appointments to the bench, were of prosecutors.
 
2. Our Constitution calls for all three branches of government to be held in elections. Our Founding Fathers called for us to Elect our Legislative branch and the Executive branch, so why are we not electing our Judicial branch of government?
Please look up Judges Lantz Lewis, Robert Longstreth, DeAnn Salcido and Joel Wohlfeil and find out WHY they were appointed and NOT elected by the people they serve. At the same time you will see that Craig Candelore and some of the other candidates have a much broader back ground in the community, the military and in  "Practicing Law",  than the incumbents! 
 
3.  I would like to see an article on how the San Diego County Bar based their evaluation (secret rating system) and them I would like their committee members to disclose what interest they have in the fund-raising for the sitting judges. Then maybe the County Bar Bar would not appear bias. Since the San Diego County Bar appeared bias, the candidates asked the Bar to tell the public that they chose to: "Declined to Participate" but that request was ignored. Not to mention the San Diego County Bar is not designed nor has the assigned authority to rate any Judicial Candidates. This City Beat article has it right:  http://www.sdcitybeat.com/cms/story/detail/juris_prudence/9212/
 
An interesting answer would be if the San Diego County Bar could explain how Judge DeAnn Salcido's rating in 2002, when she was appointed, went from "Well Qualified" down to "Lacking Qualifications" during this years evaluation. It must have been because she called the courts out on a problem, they don't like taking criticism on. Read this to see what Judge Salcido did to get her " Lacking Qualification" rating: http://themoderatevoice.com/71634/judge-sues-boss-fellow-judges-for-not-enforcing-state-domestic-violence-law/.  I don't agree with how Judge DeAnn Salcido filed the lawsuit, but I didn't lose a loved one from the mistakes that the courts may have made on releasing John Gardner.
 
4. Our Courts have been becoming more partial and bias through the years and many of our own government groups have done evaluations on this growing problem. Here are the results posted for you to see how bad it is:
 
A. Elkins Report: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/jc/tflists/elkins.htm
B. Trust and Confidence in the California Courts: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/reference/documents/4_37pubtrust1.pdf  (see pages 17,27 &28)
 
C. Commission for Impartial Courts: Final Report 2009:  http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/jc/tflists/commimpart.htm  (see pages 37, 38, 60, 74, 102-106)
 
5. I think the public should be happy that we are actually going to actually have an "election" of our judges with some transparency!  After reading the three evaluations (above), on nearly broken courts, I would like to see more public participate in our democracy, this participation is what has made America the great country that it is!!
 
I hope everyone votes on June 8th and an informed electorate, empowers democracy!

 
 
 

Homosexuality is normal

The American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and the National Association of Social Workers state:

"There is no scientific basis for distinguishing between same-sex couples and heterosexual couples with respect to the legal rights, obligations, benefits, and burdens conferred by civil marriage."

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/highprofile/documents/Amer_Psychological_Assn_Amicus_Curiae_Brief.pdf

Thus, mental health professionals and researchers have long recognized that being homosexual poses no inherent obstacle to leading a happy, healthy, and productive life, and that the vast majority of gay and lesbian people function well in the full array of social institutions and interpersonal relationships.

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/highprofile/documents/Amer_Psychological_Assn_Amicus_Curiae_Brief.pdf

The research and clinical literature demonstrate that same-sex sexual and romantic attractions, feelings, and behaviors are normal and positive variations of human sexuality.

http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/therapeutic-response.pdf

The longstanding consensus of the behavioral and social sciences and the health and mental health professions is that homosexuality per se is a normal and positive variation of human sexual orientation.

http://www.apa.org/about/governance/council/policy/sexual-orientation.aspx

Why we need to legalize gay marriage

This was taken from another poster that shows why we need to legalize gay marriage. If you don't feel for this person after reading it, you simply aren't human.

"I am not sure what our President thinks of this dicission but coming from a poor family and knowing what discrimination is all about I would assume he would not care if "Gays" have equal rights. The whole reason why they are asking for rights to be considered married is from the same reason why I would be for it. My own life partner commited suicide in our home with a gun to his heart. After a 28 year union I was deprived to even go his funeral. We had two plots next to each other. But because we did not have a marriage cirtificate "(Legal Document)" of our union his mother had him cremated and his ashes taken back to Missouri where we came from. That is only one example how painful it is. His suicide tramatized me so much and her disregard for my feelings only added to my heartach. That happened on March 21 of 2007 and I still cannot type this without crying for the trauma I have to endure each day. Oh did I mention I am in an electric wheelchair for life? Yes I am and it is very diffacult to find another mate when you are 58 and in a wheelchair. "

Homosexuality is biological

The National Library of Medicine pubs confirm that sexual orientation is natural, biologically induced in the first trimester of pregnancy, morally neutral, immutable, neither contagious nor learned, bearing no relation to an individuals ability to form deep and lasting relationships, to parent children, to work or to contribute to society.

From the American Psychological Association: homosexuality is normal; homosexual relationships are normal.

The American Academy of Pediatrics, American Psychological Asociation and American Psychiatric Asociation have endorsed civil marriage for same-sex couples because marriage strengthens mental and physical health and longevity of couples, and provides greater legal and financial security for children, parents and seniors.

America's premier child/mental health associations endorse marriage equality.

Homosexuality is not a choice

For those of you claiming homosexuality is a "lifestyle", that is a false and ignorant statement. Homosexuality is not a choice.  Just like you don't choose the color of your skin, you cannot choose whom you are sexually attracted to. If you can, sorry, but you are not heterosexual, you are bi-sexual. Virtually all major psychological and medical experts agree that sexual orientation is NOT a choice. Most gay people will tell you its not a choice. Common sense will tell you its not a choice. While science is relatively new to studying homosexuality, studies tend to indicate that its biological.

http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/03/differential-brain-activation.pdf
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/sex/dn14146-gay-brains-structured-like-those-of-the-opposite-sex.html
Gay, Straight Men's Brain Responses Differ
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,155990,00.html
http://www.livescience.com/health/060224_gay_genes.html
http://www.springerlink.com/content/w27453600k586276/
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2008/06/16/172/

There is overwhelming scientific evidence that homosexuality is not a choice. Sexual orientation is generally a biological trait that is determined pre-natally, although there is no one certain thing that explains all of the cases. "Nurture" may have some effect, but for the most part it is biological.


And it should also be noted that:
"It is worth noting that many medical and scientific organizations do believe it is impossible to change a person's sexual orientation and this is displayed in a statement by American Academy of Pediatrics, American Counseling Association, American Association of School Administrators, American Federation of Teachers, American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association, American School Health Association, Interfaith Alliance Foundation, National Association of School Psychologists, National Association of Social Workers, and National Education Association."

Homosexuality is not a sin

To those of you using the Bible as a weapon against homosexuality, you are wrong. Homosexuality is not a sin. The Bible is constantly being taken out of context to support anti-gay views. Scholars who have studied the Bible in context of the times and in relation to other passages have shown those passages (Leviticus, Corinthians, Romans, etc) have nothing to do with homosexuality. These passages often cherry-picked while ignoring the rest of the Bible. The sins theses passages are referring to are idolatry, Greek temple sex worship, prostitution, pederasty with teen boys, and rape, not homosexuality or two loving consenting adults.


http://www.soulfoodministry.org/docs/English/NotASin.htm
http://www.jesus21.com/content/sex/bible_homosexuality_print.html
http://www.christchapel.com/reclaiming.html
http://www.stjohnsmcc.org/new/BibleAbuse/BiblicalReferences.php
http://www.gaychristian101.com/
  
Thats why Jesus never mentions it as well. There is nothing immoral, wrong, or sinful about being gay. Jesus, however, clearly states he HATES hypocrites. If you preach goodness, then promote hate and twist the words of the Bible, you are a hypocrite, and will be judged and sent to hell. Homosexuals will not go to hell, hypocrites will.
  
This is very similar to the religious bigots of the past, where they took Bible passages to condone slavery, keep women down, and used Bible passages to claim blacks as curses who should be enslaved by the white man. People used God to claim that blacks marrying whites was unnatural, and not of God's will.

Jesus heals a gay

Sad thing is, what most people believe the bible says about homosexuality is completely wrong. It's been force fed to them for so many years that they don't even bother to look for themselves, they just climb onto their bench and bang the gavel. In truth, Jesus actually healed the beloved pais of a Roman centurion, no questions, no condemnation. How much more proof do you need than that? Also, if you ever really read the story of Jonathan and David, it's hard to argue that they're not a couple. I think it may be the most beautiful love story ever written. And David was greatly blessed by God. Please don't mistake "religious" people for "Christians"...there really is a difference

Be glad to. The relationship with David and Jonathan was a same gendered one. Ruth and Naomi was one. And Jesus had a disciple whom he loved, John.

more on that
http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/biblical_evidence/gay_couple.html
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Gay-Centurion.html

Corinthians does not condemn homosexuality

I Corinthians 6:9-11
Let us examine that very closely.

Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate [malakoi], nor homosexual offenders [arsenokoites], nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.

First of all, before we address this line, let us consider one thing. Supposedly taken from a 2000+ year old book, understand that the word "homosexual" was not coined until 1869 by Austrian-born novelist Karl-Maria Kertbeny. So how it happens to be included in a true reading of the particular biblical passage should make you ponder how accurate the interpretation actually is. So man changing the words of the Bible to conveniently spread hate? I think so.

Now onto the interpretation, i've included the original Greek words as well where it's relevant.


Paul was attempting to educate the new Christians in Corinth as to what Godly living was all about. In verses 9-10, he listed ways of living that were not compatible with a Christ-centered life. In verse 11, Paul reminded them that they had been saved out of those destructive ways. There are two Greek words in I Corinthians 6:9, which sometimes are translated with a homosexual connotation.

First word, "malakoi" or "malakos" - it literally means soft or mushy; it can mean spineless, wishy-washy or without backbone. "Malakoi" was used four other times in the New Testament and it always meant "soft." The context of I Corinthians seems to imply a moral softness or decadence, a failure to stand up for what is right and godly. It is significant that for several hundred years there was no sexual connotation assigned to this word.

Second word, "arsenokoitai" or "arsenokoites" - it literally means, "males having sex." Early commentaries on I Corinthians related "arsenokoitai" to male temple prostitutes and to men having sex with boys. (Idolatrous prostitution and pedophilia are always wrong for those seeking to honor God.)

Homosexual relationships were known in the Greco-Roman culture of Paul's day. The Greek word commonly used in reference to adult male same sex partners was "arrenokoites." Paul did not use this word. Instead, he created his own, "arsenokoitai." If Paul had intended to condemn all adult male same sex partners, he would have used the common word for it.

Romans does not condemn homosexuality

If taken out of context, this passage seems to condemn homosexuals. However, when Romans 1:26-27 is considered within the context of Romans 1:16 through Romans 2:16, the Scriptures clearly present a different teaching.

Paul was writing to the church in Rome. The Roman church had become troubled by divisions related to spiritual pride. Paul was addressing the Christians in Rome and teaching about the pagans in Rome. After declaring the power of Christ's gospel to save all, he pointed out that the religious people of Rome had refused to even acknowledge GOD as one of their many gods. They had turned their backs on the one true living God and worshiped handmade idols. Paul explained that as a result of their idolatry, every part of their lives had become corrupt and vile.

Paul then told the Roman Christians that they were not to judge others. To judge others is to condemn yourself (Romans 2:1). Christians are to love others out of their brokenness and into the healing wholeness that is found in Jesus Christ.

The Greek word Paul used, that has been translated in our Bibles as "natural/unnatural", relates to that which is against one's own inherent nature (i.e., heterosexuals engaging in homosexual acts). It was also related to Paul's concept of what was culturally acceptable. The same Greek word is used in I Cor. 11:14-15 in reference to correct hair length for men and women and in Gal. 2:15 in reference to Jews and Gentiles who were such by "nature." Paul emphasized that IDOLATRY (not homosexuality) was the evil which resulted in temple prostitution, sadomasochism, and lack of regard for others.

Romans 1:24-27: It would help if you knew what the culture was like back then. In those times, male-male intercourse was a result of idol worship. Back then, it was a common practice of cult priests and priestesses to submit to sexual acts with either gender as part of the worship of their deities. Therefore, such acts were considered sinful and debauchery. It would be the same if it were hetero people involved in cultic sex, prostitution or sexual abuse of minors.

Now I'm pretty sure that two guys engaging in sex these days are NOT idol worshipers. In fact, 99% of the time, it is a physical act of love; just like any hetero couples.

 

What the Sodom story was really about

The Sodom Story - Genesis 19:1-29
Homophobic Viewpoint: "Sodom was destroyed because of homosexuality."
Scriptural Viewpoint: Sodom was a lush beautiful region of land whose inhabitants had known the goodness of God. Despite their exposure to, experience with, and witness of the one true loving Creator, the people of Sodom had rejected a relationship with God, and turned to numerous types of idolatry. When God's messengers were sent to the city, the men of Sodom responded by threatening the ultimate act of violent abuse, murder, disrespect and humiliation. They were going to RAPE God's representatives.

All other Old and New Testament references to Sodom involved the sins of idolatry, inhospitality, indifference toward the poor and the rejection of God's messengers. There are NO REFERENCES to same sex acts or HOMOSEXUALITY.

What Leviticus really says

Leviticus 18:22:
"You shall not lie with a male as those who lie with a female; it is an abomination."

Leviticus 20:13:
"If a man lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination and they shall surely be put to death."

These two lines do not condemn homosexuality when you examine the rest of the Bible.

Both of these verses refer to heterosexuals who participated in fertility rituals in order to guarantee good crops and healthy flocks, not homosexuals, there is absolutely no mention of sexual orientation or homosexuality. Also, the word abomination was used for anything that was considered to be religiously unclean or dealing with any type idol worship.

The Hebrew word "toevah" was used in Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13. "Toevah" has been translated in our Bibles as "abomination" or "detestable". The "toevah" was used throughout the Old Testament for activity involving ethnic contamination and religious idolatry. "Toevah" refers to things that were ritually unclean - like eating pork.

It is significant that another Hebrew word, "zimah," also translated "abomination," which means intrinsic evil or evil by its very nature, was not used in Leviticus 18:22, or Leviticus 20:13.

It is also significant that female homosexual relationships are not mentioned in the old testament. That's because they aren't talking about sexual orientation, they are talking about idolatrous practices.