They kind of remind me of Look True North and Minnesota Majority. Good As You:
Remember, even if county clerks say they MUST follow the Supreme Court decision, that's not true and you should tell them so. The California Supreme Court has no constitutional authority to impose new laws -- especially laws that go against marriage and family, the foundation of society (see California Constitution, Article 3, Section 3 and Article 4, Section 1). Only the Legislature and the voters can make new laws with statewide application.
Ask your county clerk if they were a Nazi officer during WWII and had been ordered to gas the Jews, would they? At the Nuremberg trials, they would have been convicted of murder for following this immoral order. And should have states obeyed the 1857 Dred Scott decision designating black slaves as "property," not "persons"? Abraham Lincoln reacted with disgust to the ruling and was spurred into political action, publicly speaking out against it. Several state legislatures essentially nullified the decision and declared that they would never permit slavery within their borders, no matter who ordered them to do so. Likewise, the ruling to destroy the man-woman definition of marriage should not be obeyed.
Here is how the page reads now:
History is replete with examples of doing what was right despite unjust laws and tyrannical orders:
- Peter and the apostles telling authorities that they will obey God, not man
- Several state legislatures declaring they will never accept slavery despite the U.S. Supreme Court’s Dred Scott decision in 1857
- The post-WWII Nuremberg trials punishing military officers who followed orders and committed crimes against humanity
- The pro-democracy protestors who died in Tiananmen Square in 1989
This reminds me a bit of Minnesota Majority and their "Racial Purity" health paper.