Posted on 03/11/2009 12:03:59 PM PDT by TruthHound
Proposition 8 opponents received permission Tuesday from the California Secretary of State's office to begin collecting petition signatures toward a repeal of the state's same-sex marriage ban.
Wed, Mar. 11, 2009 Posted: 08:19 AM EDT
Proposition 8 opponents received permission Tuesday from the California Secretary of State's office to begin collecting petition signatures toward a repeal of the state's same-sex marriage ban.
The initiative would side step the issue of same-sex marriage by making all couples eligible for marriage benefits regardless of their sexual orientation. If approved, the initiative would strike the word "marriage" from all state laws and replace it with the term "domestic partnership."
The measure would also repeal Proposition 8, California's constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman.
State Attorney General Jerry Brown submitted the official title and summary for the measure on Monday, about a week after the state Supreme Court heard arguments challenging the validity of Proposition 8.
The official and title summary for the measure is as follows:
Substitutes Domestic Partnership for Marriage in California Law. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute. Replaces the term "marriage" with the term "domestic partnership" throughout California law, but preserves the rights provided in marriage. Applies equally to all couples, regardless of sexual orientation. Repeals the provision in California’s Constitution that states only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.
The proponents of the measure are two Southern California college students, Kaelan Housewright and Ali Shams. They must collect around 695,000 signatures, or 8 percent of the total votes cast for governor in the 2006 gubernatorial election, by August 6 in order to qualify for the 2010 ballot.
During last week's hearing on Proposition 8, the state Supreme Court justices indicated they would not invalidate the measure, which was approve statewide by 52 percent of voters in November. Two justices were deeply skeptical of arguments from gay rights' lawyers that the measure was an improper constitutional revision, the Los Angeles Times reported.
The High Court, however, indicated it would uphold the 18,000 same-sex marriages that took place during the four months the unions were legal in the state.
A new poll released Tuesday shows that same-sex marriage remains a divisive issue in the state. Among respondents to the Field Poll, 48 percent say they would vote in favor of a constitutional amendment to allow same-sex marriages, with 47 percent opposing and 5 percent undecided.
Frank Schubert, the Yes on 8 campaign manager, told the San Francisco Chronicle that eliminating marriage for everyone was "fundamentally a dumb idea" and unlikely to gain broad public support.
It's all about something they want to DEPRIVE the rest of us of.
Exactly!
And, how many who voted against the Gay Marriage BAN will vote in FAVOR of a total MARRIAGE BAN?
It is my guess that the gays have just “jumped the shark” here, and will create a backlash.
It’s always been a war on the family.
Yeah, because you can't have The Will of The People prevailing. Nope, just won't do.
Tiresome, silly people. Yapping Chihuahuas.
The first time I’m confronted by some cretins outside of some business trying to obtain signatures for this moronic idea, I’m going to go 10-8 on their @sses.
This is the tactic they should have taken in the first place - if you don’t like a new law, get it changed.
Their initial tactics of attacking little old ladies in the streets http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJ8jeJwrbFQ
were not just wrong but also dumb.
Also, Wouldn’t cravings for 11-year-old girls be considered an “orientation?” Great! Pedophiles can come out now. Thanks, guys! /sarc
Yes, and in the end, (no pun intended) they usually get their way.
Maybe not today, but down the road.
That is a great idea! Everyone in CA can vote to be “domestic partnered”.
File that on your federal tax returns and let us know how you make out...lol
Tiresome, silly people. Yapping Chihuahuas.
Doing Satan’s bidding.
UNdefining marriage has ALWAYS been the underlying goal.
God created the family, Satan, and his willing accomplices on the left, want to destroy it.
I probably should have added “unfortunately” to the post
“by making all couples eligible for marriage benefits”
it was always about the $$$. That’s what marriage is to them.
NAMBLA would agree with this!!!
10-8?
No it’s more like a war on what is percewived to be normal. They want you to believe that gay is as normal as straight. Leaving whatever moral predispositions one has aside, why then are only about 5-6% of the population gay? (that’s including the ones still in the closet)
And this underlines why the natural family MUST be defended in purely natural terms, without reference to supernaturally revealed/Scriptural truths, which are valuable for me (a believer) but should not be the center of any argument concerning public policy.
Social science research across the board shows that the best outcomes for children are correlated with living with their married, natural father and mother in a stable, low-conflict household.
Even children separated from their natural parents (e.g. displaced refugees, abandoned children, adopted children), derive an important sense of identity from their natural fathers (cf. the long-term "Who am I?" quest of Barack Obama, Jr.); fatherhood is neither optional nor redundant. Children likewise require their parents for 18 years and beyond.
Therefore promotion of this particular arrangement, above all others, is not a matter of bias or invidious discrimination, but is a hallmark of sound public policy.
If marriage is to be replaced by legal recognition of domestic partnership only, there is no reason why any house-sharing, whether between a mother and her adult son, two elderly sisters, a wealthy widow and her resident chef, chauffeur, and Feng Shui consultant --- or any number of housemates, should not qualify for "domestic partner" perks: but then, what's the point?
Why should people who merely live together, be licensed by the State and, in net effect, subsidized by people who don't live together? Where is the public interest?
all the pot smoking libertarians who have the foolish notion of “get government out of the marriage business” and the slew of nonsense that goes with it.
(immigration rules, inheritance, paternity, etc...)
Quite frankly it's none of their damned business. No State should be charging a fee or 'legally' recognizing any relationship between consenting adults.
There's no Constitutional basis for that anywhere.
Anyone who wants to marry in any Church should be free to do so without having to pay one thin dime to the State.
Get the State entirely OUT of the business of 'recognizing' any interpersonal relationship between consenting adults.
Period.
L
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.