Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Opponents Of Gay Marriage Say They'll Sue Over Changed Lanaguage In Proposition 8
Los Angeles Times ^ | 7/29/2008 | Jessica Garrison

Posted on 07/29/2008 4:11:38 AM PDT by goldstategop

Supporters of Proposition 8, the proposed state constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage, said they would file suit today to block a change made by California Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown to the language of the measure's ballot title and summary.

Petitions circulated to qualify the initiative for the ballot said the measure would amend the state Constitution "to provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

In a move made public last week and applauded by same-sex marriage proponents, the attorney general's office changed the language to say that Proposition 8 seeks to "eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry."

(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy; Politics/Elections; US: California
KEYWORDS: 2008election; aghankypanky; caglbt; calinitiatives; dogtrainer; homosexualagenda; jerrybrown; lawsuit; liberalbias; losangelestimes; prop8; proposition8; samesexmarriage
The Dog Trainer shows its bias in the headline. And it found nothing wrong in California Attorney General Jerry Brown's unusual rewording of the description of Proposition 8 to favor the pro-gay argument in the state's cultural divide. It was all politics and illegal to boot - hence the lawsuit to remove the rewrite from the ballot and voter pamphlet summary.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

1 posted on 07/29/2008 4:11:39 AM PDT by goldstategop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

Do homosexualists have the right to a Civil Union in California? They do here in NZ, and it is proving a tidy legal way around some of the messier aspects of them having “relationships” that are not recognized in law.

I’d be in favor of homosexualists having Civil Unions, and opposed to them having Marriages.


2 posted on 07/29/2008 4:15:03 AM PDT by DieHard the Hunter (Is mise an ceann-cinnidh. Cha ghéill mi do dhuine. Fàg am bealach.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

The wording should be what the voters approved.


3 posted on 07/29/2008 4:18:45 AM PDT by I still care ("Remember... for it is the doom of men that they forget" - Merlin, from Excalibur)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

Former Gov. “Moonbeam”, “I’ll take that under consideration” rounding up the usual suspect Leftist groupies for his forthcoming rerun for Gov. of Calif.

He’ll probably win too.


4 posted on 07/29/2008 4:24:47 AM PDT by rockinqsranch (Say Obama were "Pinky", Then who is "The Brain"?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
I was assuming that the Petition would go on the ballot, and the people of California would decide what they wanted. And that would be that. I had forgotten that the Attorney General of California has the power to write the description of each Initiative, as it goes on the ballot.

So, Jerry Brown has perverted the language of the Initiative to decrease its chances of success. And now the supporters, who went to the massive effort to gather hundreds of thousands of signatures, must count on the California courts -- which created this mess in the first place -- to straighten out the false language from AG Brown.

I hope for a good result. But I don't give good odds that it will occur.

Congressman Billybob

Eighth in the ten-part series, "The Owner's Manual (Part 8) -- Other Articles Including Amendment"

Latest article, "Three Tours de France"

5 posted on 07/29/2008 4:50:04 AM PDT by Congressman Billybob ( www.ArmorforCongress.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

I don’t know why people are all concerned about Proposition 8. Even if it wins, it will never be allowed to stand by the California Supreme Court. No matter what the legalities, they will strike it down.

I guess it will be an useful demonstration that the law is what the California Supreme Court says it is, and nothing more. But there have been ample demonstrations of this over the years, and people don’t seem to care. They are happy to be ruled by a black-robed junta.


6 posted on 07/29/2008 4:52:06 AM PDT by gridlock (IT'S AN OIL ECONOMY, STUPID!.......................................................(FREE LAZAMATAZ!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob
The Attorney General claims what he did wasn't political... but its very unusual to see ballot summary language changed so dramatically. Its supposed to be neutral but with the rewrite, the State Of California effectively made the opponents case for them. Something that shouldn't be done with taxpayers' dollars is to take a side in a partisan controversy.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

7 posted on 07/29/2008 5:02:54 AM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: DieHard the Hunter

What is a government recognized marriage if not a “civil union”? The term is a distinction without a difference.


8 posted on 07/29/2008 6:08:41 AM PDT by Cincinnatus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DieHard the Hunter

Oh, but there is a REASON they insist on it being called “Marriage” -

in order to devalue and destroy the meaning of the word as applied to the basic unit of society.


9 posted on 07/29/2008 6:14:08 AM PDT by MrB (You can't reason people out of a position that they didn't use reason to get into in the first place)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Cincinnatus

> What is a government recognized marriage if not a “civil union”? The term is a distinction without a difference.

It’s tempting to draw that conclusion, particularly as a Civil Union draws similar legal outcomes to a Marriage — at least it does in New Zealand, where I live.

Here, in law, a Civil Union is explicitly *not* a “Marriage”, and it is available to both homo-and-heterosexualist couples.

But now that you’re raised the point, I am hard-pressed to articulate the difference.

I will have to re-acquaint myself with the key differences between the two. I will report back shortly...


10 posted on 07/29/2008 6:15:54 AM PDT by DieHard the Hunter (Is mise an ceann-cinnidh. Cha ghéill mi do dhuine. Fàg am bealach.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: DieHard the Hunter; Cincinnatus

The difference is this: Civil unions are not recognized as religious unions within the Bible. They are simply a social contract that does not insinuate itself as if it were a blessed sacrament that carries with it God’s explicit blessing.

Civil unions are legal contracts, just as the civil part of marriage is. But civil unions do not carry anything more than the legal contract side.

The homosexual marriage debate is nothing more than a frontal assault on christianity, IMO. The homo-lobby must destroy that which recognize4s its evil.


11 posted on 07/29/2008 6:24:23 AM PDT by MortMan (Those who stand for nothing fall for anything. - Alexander Hamilton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Cincinnatus

...reporting back, as promised. In New Zealand, the ONLY real difference between Civil Unions and Marriages appears to be that Marriage is only available to couples of opposite sex.


12 posted on 07/29/2008 6:25:47 AM PDT by DieHard the Hunter (Is mise an ceann-cinnidh. Cha ghéill mi do dhuine. Fàg am bealach.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: MortMan
The homosexual marriage debate is nothing more than a frontal assault on christianity

And the family. Yes, Christianity is the BIG target, but you have to look at all the avenues of assault. Destroying the concept of and specialness of the traditional family is a huge front in the God V Devil war.

13 posted on 07/29/2008 6:28:34 AM PDT by MrB (You can't reason people out of a position that they didn't use reason to get into in the first place)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: MortMan

I was going to say the primary difference is Civil Union doesn’t bring any religious connotations to the table.


14 posted on 07/29/2008 6:48:30 AM PDT by Mr. Blonde (You ever thought about being weird for a living?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

The ballot title and description ought to accurately read that Proposition 8 seeks to “redress the grievance of out-of-control courts crapping on the right of voters to self-determined government and laws.”


15 posted on 07/29/2008 6:38:41 PM PDT by fwdude (If marriage can mean anything, then marriage means nothing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Blonde
...the primary difference is Civil Union doesn’t bring any religious connotations to the table.

No, just the force of government to compel those not involved in the charade to act as if it IS marriage for all practical purposes.

16 posted on 07/30/2008 5:08:58 AM PDT by fwdude (If marriage can mean anything, then marriage means nothing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson