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.
A.K.A. "We are mad so we are gonna take our ball and go home!"
I always said its none of the State's Biz. If people want a legal document denoting who gets what in case of death or breakup of the partnership, they can seek such with a lawyer.
Then if one wants to be married via their Church AND have the legalities of survivorship etc. they go to their Church for the religious aspect and the lawyers for the legal aspect.
That way it get the dang Government out of the religious side of it altogether.
Bingo.
Then if one wants to be married via their Church AND have the legalities of survivorship etc. they go to their Church for the religious aspect and the lawyers for the legal aspect.
Double Bingo.
The proper way to settle this entire thing is to remove the State as a player. That way homosexuals can go the Our Brother Of Gerbils and Rumprangers "Church" and have any sort of ceremony they like.
Normal people can go the the Church of their choice and have any sort of a ceremony they like.
The State gets NO money from either one, and has no say in who is 'married' to whom.
Of course the State would not have any power to mandate any sort of 'benefit' whatsoever, a power which it will not give up easily.
L
This is going no where. If they get enough signatures to put it on the ballot it will not pass.
Wait a minute! I’m from Massachusetts! People really get to VOTE on this in other states???????
"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
"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
There's a case to be made for the POV that the various churches can take care of the sacramental or ceremonial aspects of marriage, and private contract could take care of the rest.
Class: discuss.
It IS in the state’s interest to promote and support the basic unit of society.
“Libertarians” may not think the gov’t has any business promoting morals or traditions, but the founders thought differently.
"Civil" marriage shouldn't even exist. Period.
It's nothing more than an excuse for further State intrusion into areas it has no business being.
Most States are failing miserably at fulfilling their most basic responsibilities as it is. Allowing them any say into what is or is not a 'marriage' is simply silly.
L
That being said, even without bringing in the issues of same-sex unions, polygamy, and the like, much of what is called "marriage" by the state is a puny and wizened thing. When you think of the constitutive characteristics of marriage (a lifelong, exclusive, fertile union) and compare it to what passes for legal marriage today (divorceable, routinely preceded by fornication and intermittently open to adultery, temporarily or permanently sterile by choice) you can see that the word "marriage" has already lost most of its meaning.
Heterosexuals redefined marriage via creating no-fault divorce, a licentious junk-sex culture, and contraception.
I repeat: it was heterosexuals who queered marriage. That the queers now want in, is no surprise at all.
CB radio term - denotes that you are active on the radio
The Founders? Um, no. Marriage licenses didn't become commonplace in the United States until the 1920s, and only then to prevent interracial marriages.
The Founders managed to put together a country and preserve the "basic unit of society" without marriage licenses. Amazing.
Ah, thank you.
LOL! I’d pay to see that.
How long have you had this megalomaniacal blind spot separating opinion from reality?
Two thousand years of tradition and cultural norms out the window because you think it should?
The tempest is about a word.
The perverts want to deny its continued use by everyone else.
Not rational at all. Period.
See Tagline for my entire comment on the matter.
Everything else should be taken care of by contracts. (IE - Death benefits, custody, etc)
I agree with them. Marriage is an act of the church. Civil unions, regardless of sex, may be a government matter.
When my son told me they were going to the Court to get married, I told them I wasn’t interested. What you pledge before God matters to me. Anything else is just a tax shelter.
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.