they hate themselves so much, that they will try to kill marriage unless they can pervert it to their own liking, that along with the Church. they will burn in hellfire for this.
Posted on 03/11/2009 4:13:40 PM PDT by wagglebee
SACRAMENTO, March 11, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - California same-sex "marriage" supporters are collecting signatures to support a ballot initiative that would remove civil marriage from California law entirely, as well as the provision codifying marriage as between a man and a woman.
The "Domestic Partnership Initiative" proposes to categorize all unions simply as "domestic partnerships," while retaining all the rights of marriage for heterosexual couples, and extending them to homosexual couples. According to the initiative's summary, "Legally speaking, 'Marriage' itself would become a social ceremony, recognized by only non-governmental institutions."
State Attorney General Jerry Brown submitted the official title and summary for the measure on Monday, about one week after opening arguments in lawsuits challenging Proposition 8, California's true marriage amendment.
The new initiative arose after it was widely acknowledged that judges appeared unconvinced that the state Supreme Court should overturn the voter-approved amendment.
Kaelan Housewright and Ali Shams, the two college students behind the initiative, must collect the signatures of about 700,000 registered voters by August 6 in order for it to make the ballot.
"[The initiative] is more like a compromise that mediates the two sides," said Shams. "This isn't a gay rights campaign, it's an equal rights campaign. You can see it as an attack on marriage, but you can also see it as protecting marriage because we are taking it out of the battlefield."
Frank Schubert, the pro-Proposition 8 campaign manager, told the San Francisco Gate that eliminating all types of marriage was unlikely to gain broad public support and called it "fundamentally a dumb idea."
Judging by the raw statistics, I’d say that formal lifetime marriage is a dying deal anyway. More than half end in divorce, and a good percentage of the remaining one are less than blissful, according to my personal observations.
It almost takes being a stuntman to want to get married...
Yeah, like all the real married people will go along with this.
they hate themselves so much, that they will try to kill marriage unless they can pervert it to their own liking, that along with the Church. they will burn in hellfire for this.
"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
Will these damn queers ever stop?
Since marriage is a sacrament of the Church in reality its not the states role to define it anyway.
That has to the the understatement of the century.
I don’t buy that stat about 50% ending on divorce.
Don’t get me wrong. I believe that half of all marriages don’t make it, but the implication is that half of all *first* marriages are doomed.
My own mother had three husbands. So that’s three first-time marriages by other people that make it so the statistic balances out. (Two of her ex-husbands each had three failed marriages, as well.)
My MIL and FIL are both on their second marriages. So they keep the numbers level.
My neighbor’s on hubby #5. So there’s 5 first-time marriages who “death til they part”.
There are many who’s first marriages fail and who never try again. That means that for every one of them, there’s a marriage that goes the distance.
Many, MANY people don’t get it right the first time, but do the second. (Older, wiser, more experienced, make a better choice for a mate, etc) They, too, keep the numbers at the 50% mark and end up very happy.
The odds of a first marriage making it is much better than implied by the statistic.
I hate to admit it, but I agree with you.
A part of me would be just fine with this bill, but another part of me is screaming a warning that this will continue the undermining of the institution of marriage... possibly pushing it off a cliff.
There's something about saying, "I'd like you to meet my husband," that, "I'd like you to meet my domestic partner," just doesn't do.
No it doesn’t belong in the realm of the state, but the state should support it.
The reason is because the family is man’s first government. This is where we begin to respect authority. The state should strongly support it, not promote anarchy.
These Califags are out of control.
Yes. If it passes, a bright line will be drawn between serious Catholics who live by their religion first, and by the laws of the state incidentally. That would be good for Catholicism and by the same token, good for all fundamentalist (small “f”: the Eastern Orthodox, conservative Protestant, Muslim, orthodox Jews) religions.
However, it is horrible public policy and should be opposed by anyone who wants to preserve the American system of civil government. Along with Roe v. Wade, that will be another change in the American jurisprudence that delegitimizes the government.
Exactly. Nobody is any more or less married because gubberment says so. I don’t think gubberment involvement in marriage has been very good for the ol’ institution at all. Like most things where gubberment gets involved, it will eventually mess up and put forth impossibilities like “gay mariage”.
Freegards
if they can’t make the rules there will be NO rules.....
You shouldn't.
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/d/divorce.htm
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.