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.
The individual.
“Libertarians” may not think the gov’t has any business promoting morals or traditions, but the founders thought differently.
I'm a republican with libertarian leanings. What traditions are you referring to? As far as morals, I agree to a very limited extent. Government needs to protect life (including unborn), property rights, and regulate use of force on others and their property (trespass). Further stuff I can support to a limited extent on local levels (zoning, etc).
Marriage IMO belongs in the church. Heck, my church does not only refuse to recognize gay marriage (rightly so), it also has a lot of strict rules if I ever marry a protestant.
Bite me.
Two thousand years of tradition and cultural norms out the window because you think it should?
Are you talking about slavery?
The tempest is about a word.
The 'tempest' is about using the power of the State to intrude into an area it has no business being.
Remove the State from the equation and there's no issue.
Do try to keep up....
L
Ben Franklin was married by Common Law, no church was invovled nor any Government Official.
"Two thousand years of tradition and cultural norms out the window because you think it should?"
I perceive you aren't fully aware of the definition of "civil" Marriage.
Why have the government get involved at all on who sleeps with who?
Just allow the legal aspect of a partnership be decided by the state, (Rights of survivorship and who gets what if the partnership is dissolved) and leave the "union" part out of it.
If you want the "union" to be recognized you got to your Church.
Apart from all that, the State has allows had an interest in marriage because it goes along with the rules of inheritance, of passing properties to the next generations in an orderly manner. Can’t reduce things to mere sentiment. Marriage is and always has been more than a sentimental relationship.
Which can be done using the services of a competent attorney. You're argument is crap.
The State has absolutely no vital interest in the issue of marriage. None.
L
That's exactly it. I happen to think that homosexuality is the definition of narcissism..that is: "being in love with one's own image" which is a serious personality disorder and the gay agenda is to get it rubber-stamped as normal.
You are saying that the State has no interest in property and lines of inheritance? You are saying that a lawyer can set up instruments that are beyond the powers of the courts to adjudicate? In what universe do you live?
That like saying all scientists agree global warming is real...just not so...Google homosexuality and narcissism sometime for some interesting reading....
The ones that are willing to print stuff for Psychology Today, or anything that is accessible to the semi-literate public.
That's because it is not politically correct to say that homosexuality is abnormal...regardless of what the findings are...
And deadly to careers.
Once again for the comprehension impaired, NO.
You are saying that a lawyer can set up instruments that are beyond the powers of the courts to adjudicate?
See above.
In what universe do you live?
One where the inhabitants are a good deal smarter than yours, apparently.
L
I remember that when Bush nominated Dr. James Holsinger for Surgeon General, the shrieking from the gay groups was ear-splitting. Any why? Because Dr. Holsinger --- who was Kentucky's top public health official, and also was chancellor of the University of Kentucky's medical center --- had prepared a compilation of peer-reviewed scientific data on homosexual health issues for the United Methodist Church.
The gay organizations took offense because he drew from the extant research some pretty common-sense conclusions such as that anal penetration is not on the medical healthy-healthy-happy-happy best-practices list...
Exactly...
Well, in your universe, are courts agents of the state or not?
Lending to support that the gay rights movement is based on emotion alone.
You're not real bright, are you.
If you'll just scroll back up the thread I already said that everything the 'marriage' people are arguing about can already be handled by Contracts, Powers of Attorney, or Wills. These are, of course, adjudicated through the Courts.
That has absolutely nothing, feel free to move your lips here, NOTHING to do with a State sanctioned 'marriage' of any kind.
Now p*** off.
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.