VOTE COMING UP AS EARLY AS THURSDAY, APRIL 7 ON AMNESTY FOR ILLEGAL ALIENS
Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho) is planning to offer S. 355 "AgJOBS" amnesty bill as early as Thursday. He will offer it as an amendment to the Iraqi Supplemental Bill that is meant to fund our troops overseas. A couple of things this amendment would do is:

1. Afford amnesty for every illegal alien, along with his/her family who can produce sufficient evidence to show, "as a matter of just and reasonable inference," that the illegal alien performed agricultural work in the US for as little as the equivalent of 2 1/2 standard work weeks -- 100 hours between July 1, 2003 and December 21, 2004.
2. Require the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to grant temporary legal residence and work permits to illegal aliens who can show they have performed the requisite 100 hours of ag work unless the aliens are convicted criminals, terrorists, or public charges.

It will be very hard for the Senate to vote against the amendment if it is added to the supplemental bill to support our troops in Iraq.

To read more about S. 359 go to www.NumbersUsa.com.

ACTION: Please call Senator Saxby Chambliss at 202-224-2521 (DC) or 770-763-9090 (Atlanta) and urge him to ask Sen. Craig to withdraw his amendment. I placed a call to his office earlier today and have not heard back.

DO NOT CALL Senator Johnny Isakson's office as I have spoken with his office today and Senator Isakson is opposed to amnesty in any manner.

*****

This in from the Liberty Counsel.....

California Appeals Court Rules That Domestic Partnership Law Does Not Violate Proposition 22 Marriage Initiative

Sacramento, CA - Today the California Court of Appeals ruled that the statewide marriage initiative passed by the voters in 2000 known as Proposition 22 was not violated by the states domestic partnership law. Campaign for California Families ("CCF") challenged the law passed by the legislature in September 2003 known as AB205, which purported to grant the same rights, protections, and benefits, and provide the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under the law to domestic partners as are granted to and imposed upon spouses in marriage. CCF challenged AB 205 and is represented by Mathew D. Staver, President and General Counsel of Liberty Counsel, and Senior Litigation Counsel, Rena Lindevaldsen.

In 2000, the voters passed Proposition 22, which states that "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." Prop 22 did not amend the states Constitution, but is like a legislative statute passed by the people as opposed to the legislators. In 1999 California recognized domestic partnerships for the first time and granted two minor benefits. In 2001, the legislature expanded domestic partnerships. In September 2003, the legislature passed AB205, which substantially expanded domestic partnerships by granting identical rights to same-sex domestic partners as are afforded to spouses in marriage. Essentially the only benefits not conferred were benefits that can only be conferred by the federal government.

California law prohibits the legislature from "amending" a voter legislative initiative. An amendment can be any subsequent legislative act that changes the scope or effect of an initiative. The Court ruled that since Proposition 22 only defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman and did not address the benefits of marriage, a domestic partnership law which provides virtually the same benefits as marriage did not conflict with the initiative. The Court contrasted Prop 22 with other state constitutional amendments that define marriage as the union of one man and one woman and prohibit substantially similar marital status from being conferred on same-sex couples. The Court referred to the constitutional provisions in Nebraska, Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Ohio and Texas.

Staver commented: "Although Proposition 22 did not expressly address 'substantially similar relationships' to marriage or the 'benefits of marriage,' it is obvious that the peoples intent was not simply to trademark the label 'marriage.' The voters intended not only to preserve the name marriage but also the essence of marriage."

Liberty Counsel will ask the California Supreme Court to review this case.

Thank you for Keeping The Faith.
Sadie Fields