The Republican Club of Sun City

NEWSLETTER
November 2014 Everett Schmidt, Editor Sun City Texas

PANEL TO DISCUSS PROPOSED SUN CITY EXPANSION

A panel consisting of Steve Fought, a member of the Georgetown City Council representing District 4, and Gary Preston, secretary of the Sun City Community Association Board of Directors will discuss the widely- publicized expansion proposed for Sun City during the club’s dinner meeting scheduled for Thursday, November 6 in the ballroom of the Social Center in Sun City. Other matters may also be discussed.

The proposed expansion is huge. According to the Community Impact, Sun City’s existing area already includes about 7,000 homes with about 500 lots awaiting construction. With the expansion, the Sun City development will total more than 5,200 acres and have nearly 10,00 homes when built out.

The expansion has implications for both the city and the Community Association, hence the panel consisting of representatives of those two entities.

The Social Period, Dinner and Program. A social period will begin at 6:00 PM. The dinner will begin at 6:30 PM and will be followed by the program. The dinner will consist of roasted turkey breast with cranberry sauce, corn bread stuffing, green beans almondine, red skinned mashed potatoes with cream gravy, spring mix salad with assorted dinner roles.

Cost. Cost is $16 per person. Checks made out to The Republican Club of Sun City should be mailed to: The Republican Club of Sun City, 1530 Sun City Blvd., Suite 120, Box 227, Georgetown, TX 78633. The deadline for payment or reservations is Friday, October 31.

Club treasurer John Congdon has set up a special collection box on his front porch at 610 Farm Hill Drive for individuals wishing to hand-deliver payments, with the proviso that the Friday deadline has been met. For information about reservations, contact John at 512-686-1676 or johnsctx@gmail.com

VISITORS ARE WELCOME!

CLUB WILL NOT MEET IN DECEMBER

Following a practice of long standing, the club will not meet during the month of December. The next meeting, after the November meeting, is scheduled for Thursday, January 8, 2015. A calendar of meeting dates in 2015 will be provided in the January 2015 newsletter to be transmitted in late December.

MEMBERSHIP DRIVE FOR 2015 NOW UNDERWAY

Both residents and non-residents of Sun City who “believe in the philosophy of the Republican Part” may join the club for the year 2015 upon payment of the $15 per person membership fee, payable at club meetings or by mail.

Th renewal process has been made simpler for 2014 members who wish to renew. If they have had no changes in address during 2014, they need simply submit the $15 per person dues payment. They do not need to submit an Application for Membership.

However, renewing members who wish to update address information, and new 2015 members must submit an Application along with dues payments Applications are available at the club’s web site, www.rcsctx.com, and at meetings.

Payments and Applications (if needed) should be mailed to the address shown in the first news article (above) or they may be hand-delivered during the November 6 meeting.

Visitors are welcome to attend meetings for the dinner or as observers (without eating); however, they should understand that the maximum number of meetings they may attend without joining the club it two. Elected officials are exempt from this requirement.

Simply being a club member makes a contribution to the cause of the Republican Party, this being said because the more members the club has, the greater is its stature and “clout.”

The purposes of the club are (1) to promote an informed electorate, (2) to foster loyalty to the Republican Party, (3) to promote its principles, and (4) to work for the election of Republican Party nominees.

“GET OUT THE GOP VOTE” PROJECT A HUGE SUCESS

The reader will recall the effort reported in the October newsletter made by the club to reduce the number of unregistered residents living in Sun City. That effort was conducted on a non-partisan basis. The effort of the club and others (the state and county) to reduce that number can be considered a success inasmuch as

the number of unregistered residents was reduced from around 2,000 at the beginning of the project to around 706 at the time of the September 13 “block walk” which concluded the project. That number could be reduced even more as the results of the project are revealed on updated printouts.

After the conclusion of the effort, Sun City precinct leaders – Barbara Mabray (ch., pct.381), Meredith Chiles (ch., pct. 394) and Joy Putnam (pct. 396) – carried out a “get out the vote” campaign specifically designed to energize Republican voters in the coming election.

The campaign was massive, as the following statistics will illustrate, and involved two phases:

The first phase involved the stuffing of around 8,000 plastic bags with 8-10 items, including Voter Guides (provided by the County Party), various types of campaign literature (provided by Republican candidates) and literature about the Republican Club and GARW (provided by those clubs). The intent of this phase was to provide stuffed bags for the three precincts of Sun City plus 5 other precincts in Georgetown and Florence. The stuffing took place over a 4-day period in the garage of Bill and Meredith Chiles. Meredith supervised this phase which involved 33 volunteers.

The second phase was carried out by precinct under the general direction of the three precinct leaders mentioned above. This phase involved 95 volunteers who attached the stuffed plastic bags to about 6,000 homes of Republicans and potential Republicans in Sun City, plus 2,000 or so homes in the 5 precincts of Georgetown and Florence mentioned above.

The statistics revealing the number of bags stuffed, the number of homes having bags attached, and the number of participating volunteers justify the conclusion that the project was a success. The leaders of this effort and the volunteers, numbering over 100, who helped carry it out are to be congratulated for a job well done.

OTHER CLUB NEWS
Club to Elect Officers for 2015. Pursuant to club bylaws, the club will elect officers for 2015 during its

November 6 meeting. The Nominating Committee nominates the following individuals as officers for the year 2015: president – Robert Fears; first vice president (for programs) – Meredith Chiles; second vice president (for membership) – John Congdon; treasurer – Bill Chiles; Secretary – Sue Goodenough.

Sample Ballots Available. Sample ballots for the coming election are available for viewing and/or duplicating at the county’s web site, www.Wilco.org. After accessing that screen, (1) click “Elections” (on far right), (2) click “early voting and voting by mail,” (3) click “sample ballot” – then follow directions. State and city propositions are shown on that ballot.

Meeting Attendance. Club treasurer John Congdon reports that there were 130 attendees for the October dinner, with an estimated 15 observers.

Reminders. The club’s web site is www.rcsctx.com where various types of information about the club and current and back issues of the newsletter can be viewed; bumper stickers promoting the GOP are available at club meetings; 2015 dues are now payable.

THE LEGAL CONFLICT OVER MARRIAGE:

A FORERUNNER OF OTHER COMING LEGAL CONFLICTS?
Foreword. With the refusal of the Supreme Court during the early part of October to hear appeals from five states where lower courts had overruled state bans on same-sex marriage, there may be the perception that the battle over same-sex marriage is now over, and that same-sex advocates had won. That was the conclusion of at least one popular governor, Wisconsin’s Scott Walker, and at least one state attorney general who declined

to file an appeal on behalf of his state.
But that perception may be premature in view of the fact that multiple circuits (Fifth, Sixth, Ninth and

Eleventh) have cases pending before them, and the fact that the Supreme Court made its ruling without comment, thus leaving decisions about marriage with a number of states – including Texas – at least for now.

More important – as will be pointed out later – Texas will fight for those provisions adopted by the people of Texas, as evidenced by statements of state officials.

It is important to understand that in addition to the marriage conflict, there are a number of related issues – including the highly-publicized gender war in Houston, and issues of religion and private property – which are increasing in frequency.

This report will include: some pertinent court cases, what is and what is not a legitimate basis for court involvement, the position of Texas, and some illustrations of emerging disputes, including the one in Houston. The report will conclude with how Texans and other citizens who support traditional marriage and religious liberty can “push back.”

The DOMA (Windsor) Decision. The Supreme Court, while it struck down certain parts of the DOMA law, did not specifically say that same-sex marriage was a constitutional right or that states could no longer

regulate marriage; however, the majority did make the accusation (without supporting evidence) that Congress had passed DOMA to “disparage,” “injure,” “demean” gay and lesbian Americans.

Believing such attacks were calculated to manipulate states – and not the federal courts – to permit same-sex marriage, possibly in an effort to avoid the unrelenting dissension which ensued in the wake of the Roe decision. Justice Scalia, in dissent, responded as follows to the accusations of the majority: “As far as this Court is concerned, no one should be fooled; it is just a matter of listening and waiting for the other shoe. By formally declaring anyone opposed to same-sex marriage an enemy of human decency, the majority arms well every challenger to a state law restricting marriage to its traditional definition. The result will be a judicial distortion of our society’s debate over marriage . . . “

The October 6 Supreme Court Decision. The Supreme Court’s refusal to grant review of the appeals from same-sex marriage cases originating in Indiana, Oklahoma, Utah, Virginia and Wisconsin meant that rulings of state courts which had ruled a ban on same-sex marriage was not legal was now the law in those states. But inasmuch as the Supreme Court did not proclaim same-sex marriage to be a Constitutional right, “The Court’s decision also ensures the debate over marriage will continue – with Texas being a key battleground – and that Texas, for now, still retains the right to define marriage as one man and one woman,” asserts Jonathan Saenz, President of Texas Values.

Saenz also contends, “The decision makes Texas even more important [because] many believe that the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals will uphold our marriage laws as we expect that it will.”

Sen. Ted Cruz said, “The fact that the Supreme Court Justices, without providing any explanation whatsoever, have permitted lower courts to strike down so many state marriage laws is astonishing.” (How he intends to “push back” is revealed in another section of this report.)

The Fourteenth Amendment as a Basis of Lawsuits. According to Sen Cruz, “The Supreme Court is, de facto, applying an extremely broad interpretation to the 14th Amendment without saying a word – an action that is likely to have far-reaching consequences . . .It is beyond dispute that when the 14th Amendment was adopted 146 years ago, as a necessary post-Civil War era reform, it was not imagined to also mandate same- sex marriage, but that is what the Supreme Court is implying today. The Court is making the preposterous assumption that the People of the United States somehow silently redefined marriage in 1868 when they ratified the 14th Amendment.”

In the Absence of an Applicable Constitutional Provision, What Happens? Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito offers these comments: “The Constitution simply does not speak to the issue of same-sex marriage. In our system of government, ultimate sovereignty rests with the people, and the people have the right to control their own destiny. Any change on a question so fundamental should by made by the people through their elected officials.”

Judaism and the Emergence of Western Civilization. Columnist Dennis Praeger, author of the award- winning article, “Why Judaism rejected homosexuality,” made the following comments:
• It is not overstated to say that the Torah’s prohibition of non-marital sex made the creation of Western civilization possible. The subsequent dominance of the Western world can largely be attributed to the sexual revolution initiated by Judaism, and later carried forward by Christianity. It began the arduous task of elevating the status of women.
• By contrast, throughout the ancient world, and up to the recent past in many parts of the world, sexuality infused virtually all of society. Human sexuality, especially male sexuality, is utterly wild. Men have had sex with women and with men; with little girls and young boys; with a single partner and in large groups; with total strangers and immediate family members; and with a variety of domesticated animals.
The Question of Morality. U. S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli argued in the Obama administration’s
amicus brief that it is illegitimate for the government to base a policy on “a moral judgment” – in this case, a moral judgment about homosexual behavior.” This contention is contrary to the traditional view.

The advocates of same-sex marriage want the government to teach children that same-sex “intimate relationships” are not only right, but a “Constitutional right,” asserts columnist Terry Jeffrey. But to do that, they must reject the natural law, the Old Testament, the New Testament, and more than 2,000 years of Western tradition. And they must teach that the Declaration of Independence was wrong when it insisted that our rights come from our Creator.

Communist Ideology. Columnist Phyllis Schlafley notes that a major part of the Communist Manifesto is its unrelenting attack on the the so-called “bourgeois family” which Marx believed was responsible for the inequality he despised. If communism was to succeed, he wrote, the bourgeois family had to be done away with not only because it provided the means of transmission and accumulation of private property, but also because the family controlled the formation and education of children. Marx wanted to break the family so that children could be raised and educated communally, free from patriarchal ties and religious beliefs.

The Huge Chasm Between the Warring Factions. Author/commentator Cal Thomas contends, “The

main arguments against permitting same-sex couples to marry are moral and biblical. The problem, especially for conservative Christians who oppose the legalization of homosexual marriage, is that they are speaking to people who don’t accept their moral code, or biblical instruction. Many, the products of liberal universities, also regard the Constitution as a “living document,” by which they mean it, too, can be changed or ignored to suit the times.”

Thomas concludes: “There are at least two problems with using a moral and biblical argument. One is: How do same-sex marriage opponents persuade people who don’t believe traditional marriage was God’s idea and should remain as He intended? The answer is, they can’t. And so it becomes a political power play with one side quoting Scripture or history and the other side demanding “equality.” Whoever gets the most votes – at the ballot box or by judicial decision – wins.

The Olson/Perkins Debate. Columnist Mona Charen reported on the recently televised debate between Constitutional lawyer Ted Olson and Tony Perkins, President of the Family Research Council:

Perkins asked Olson what was the purpose of marriage; however, in response, Olson declined to make any reference to children, electing instead to cite platitudes like “privacy,” “association,” and “liberty.”

Reacting to Olson’s claim that marriage “is about being with the person you love,” Perkins asks Olson where he would draw boundaries on who shall be married if its “only about love.” Olson, in response, changed the subject. Charen adds this comment: “The ‘being with someone you love’ case fits nicely on a greeting card, but it also contributes to the divorce culture, because the implicit message is that when you no longer love someone, the purpose of marriage is over. Adults’ feelings will trump all, as they too often do already.” Charen also contends that the move for same-sex marriage “was never about marriage. It was about social acceptance.”

Some Recent Developments in the Gender/Homosexual Wars:
• The Houston Gender War. Earlier this year Mayor Parker, a Democrat, spearheaded the passage of an Equal Rights Ordinance (ERO) that added “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” to the city’s non- discrimination provision, which includes among other things, “public accommodations” – for example, restrooms. Citizens, among them church leaders, balked. They launched a referendum petition that, with the requisite 17,269 signatures, would require the city council to repeal the ERO, or to put the measure up for a vote. They obtained 55,000 signatures, but the city rejected the petition on a technicality, after which several citizens sued. Subsequent to that development, the City of Houston has subpoenaed privileged communications of five pastors who helped to organize the petition drive. Among other information, the city is requesting communications between the pastors and their attorneys pertaining to the ERO lawsuit, communications between the pastors and their congregations, and even the pastors’ sermons.
• The Abandonment of Distinction Based on Gender. The whole premise of same-sex marriage is that gender is insignificant: It doesn’t matter whether you marry a man or a woman. Love, not gender, matters. One example: This year Harvard University appointed its first permanent director of bisexual, gay, lesbian, transgender and queer student life. The individual, Vanidy Bailey, has asked that he/she never be referred to as he or she, male or female. Harvard has agreed. Schools now elect girls as homecoming kings and boys as homecoming queens.
• A transgender man – an employee of Hobby Lobby since 1998 – has lodged a discrimination complaint with the Illinois Department of Human Rights against one of the stores in Aurora, Illinois, because management won’t allow him to use the women’s restroom. The employee identified as a male when first hired, but began his transition to female appearance in 2009. He now demands “to be treated like all other women.”
• Facilities Rental. Liberty Ridge Farms, located in New York, was recently fined $10,000 and ordered to pay two lesbians $1,500 each because the owners refused to rent their facilities for a lesbian wedding because of their religions beliefs.
• A Homosexual Judge Declines to Marry a “Straight Couple.” A homosexual judge in Dallas, Texas, Tonya Parker, refuses to marry straight couples in order to protest Texas not having “gay marriages.”

Citizens Begin to “Push Back.” For decades, the nation has witnessed a clash of worldviews having on one side citizens who wish to maintain and promote the Judeo-Christian values on which the nation was founded. On the other side are citizens who wish to abolish those values. The clash is a death struggle wherein one side seeks to literally destroy the other side which, instead of seeking to destroy its adversary, seeks to reform it. Seemingly, the traditional values side has been content to watch its values being taken away without a fight. Until now, that is. Now, possibly as a result of developments in Houston, there is a willingness to “fight back” as evidenced by the following courses of action now underway or contemplated for the near future:

• Senator Cruz states: “Marriage is a question for the States. That is why I have introduced legislation, S.2024, to protect the authority of state legislatures to define marriage. And that is why, when Congress returns to session, I will be introducing a constitutional amendment to prevent the federal government or the courts from attacking or striking down state marriage laws.”

• Governor Huckabee states: “I am utterly exasperated with Republicans and the so-called leadership of the Republicans who have abdicated on this issue when, if they continue this direction they guarantee they’re gonna lose every election in the future,” he warned. “If the Republicans wanna lose guys like me, and a whole bunch of still God-fearing Bible-believing people, go ahead and just abdicate on this issue, and go ahead and say abortion doesn’t matter either. Because at that point, you lose me, I’m gone. I’ll become an independent, I’ll start finding people that have guts to stand, I’m tired of this.” Perkins states, “Trust me, Governor Huckabee is not alone.”

• Journalist Robert McCain, quoted in gopusa.com, states, “Every Democrat in the state should be publicly challenged by Republicans either to endorse Mayor Parker’s extremist agenda, or else to denounce it.”
• Peter LaBarbera, president of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality, asserts, “Now is the time for civil disobedience on a massive scale: we hope that statesmen and citizens alike . . .where the people’s will has been robbed by elitist judges will reassert their state sovereignty against escalating judicial supremacy.” The comments of Martin Luther King, in his 1963 writing titled, “Letter from a Birmingham Jail” about breaking unjustified laws should be noted. Said King: “The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust…One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that ‘an unjust law is not law at all.’”

SHOULD CITIZENS HAVE CONFIDENCE IN THE SUPREME COURT?

The Supreme Court has, thus far, avoided dealing directly with the Constitution in a given same-sex marriage issue by leaving such issue to the state. However, at this point, it appears that the same-sex marriage issue will be reviewed by at least one circuit court, the Fifth Circuit Court, which may, unlike other circuit courts, be supportive of traditional marriage. A favorable ruling by that court would result in divided opinions among the various circuit courts with the result being that the Supreme Court would be forced to resolve the division.

There are two main concerns about the ability and inclination of the Supreme Court Justices to deal objectively with same-sex marriage and related issues:

One is the matter of recusal. Should a given Justice withdraw from a case in the interest of fairness? It should be noted in this regard that both Justice Ginsberg and Justice Kagan have performed same-sex wedding ceremonies, thus bring their objectivity into question. Justice Kagan officiated at a same-sex wedding for her former law clerk and his partner. Justice Ginsberg has done the deed multiple times, including at least one in the Supreme Court building.

There are laws governing recusal; however, it is up to the individual Justice to determine whether or not to recuse himself or herself.

The other concern is age. Following are names, dates of birth, and ages as of October 2014 of the four eldest Justices:

Justice Date of Birth Age, Oct. 2014

Scalia 3-11-36 78 Kennedy 7-23-36 78 Ginsberg 3-15-33 81 Bryer 8-15-38 76

As a number of club members can testify, there are both physical and mental issues which surface with advancing years. One has to wonder if there are problems of which the general public is not aware. To illustrate that point are several excerpts (presented below) from Mark Levin’s book, Men in Black, describing some of the aging – or otherwise deficient – Justices of the past:

WILLIAM O. DOUGLAS
FDR appointed Douglas in 1939. In a particularly bizarre episode, Douglas met a flight attendant on a

plane and invited her to visit him at the Court, where he allegedly physically assaulted her. Douglas’s marriages to young women [he was married 4 times] and his subsequent divorces created financial hardship for him, so he sought income to supplement his Court salary. One significant source of income while he was on the bench came from a questionable source in Las Vagas.

In his last year on the Court, Douglas also suffered, at times, from delusion: “A 1974 stroke incapacitated

him at the age of 76 for 21/2 months. Afterward, he slurred his words, couldn’t walk, developed fears that people were trying to kill him, thought he was the chief Justice and spurned pleas that he quit.” Things were so bad that the Justices themselves took action: “His refusal to step down despite obvious mental and physical problems led colleagues to decide secretly to stop counting his vote in some cases, until he finally quit at the insistence of his wife and friends,” some 10 months after the stroke.

HUGO BLACK
Black, appointed by FDR in 1937, had been a member of the Ku Klux Klan in Alabama. He stayed on the

Court longer than he should have. In 1969, he suffered a stroke, “resulting in a partial loss of memory.” His health troubles became worse. He found it difficult to concentrate. His short-term memory was waning. In conference he began to stumble badly, becoming tired and confused, and unable to remember which case was being discussed. Black’s mental decline seemed to lead to paranoia in the months before his resignation and death.

FELIX FRANKFURTER
Frankfurter was appointed by Franklin Roosevelt in 1939. He helped launch the career of the notorious

spy Alger Hiss. At Frankfurter’s urging, Hiss began a public service career that included service as a delegate to the Yalta Conference, where FDR, Churchill, and Stalin set the boundaries of postwar Europe. He was tried for perjury, and Frankfurter, in an unprecedented move for a sitting Supreme Court Justice, served as a character witness for Hiss at his trial.

ABE FORTAS
LBJ appointed Fortas to the Court in 1965. He continued to act as an adviser to Johnson while on the

Court. He supplemented his Court salary by taking money from a foundation set up by a convicted “stock swindler.” Fortas resigned from the Court after it was revealed that while on the bench he had pocketed a $20,000 retainer from the foundation of jailed financier Louis Wolfson. It was a quiet deal, and became public only when Johnson tried to make Fortas chief justice in 1968. Fortas, finding himself facing impeachment rather than promotion, resigned.

THURGOOD MARFSHALL
Marshall, appointed by LBJ in 1967, stayed on the court too long. In his final years on the court, he

became indifferent to his judicial duties – he reportedly left much of the writing of opinions to his clerks and sometimes didn’t bother to read the briefs submitted by counsel. Instead, he apparently spent many hours watching television in his chambers. In his waning years, Marshall would disparage the framers of the Constitution.