Posted on 03/17/2009 4:35:18 AM PDT by DirtyHarryY2K
Homosexual activists have submitted proposals to California's attorney general, hoping to overturn Proposition 8.
California Catholic Daily reports same-sex marriage proponents hope to get the two measures on the 2010 ballot in case the Supreme Court decides to uphold Prop. 8.
One initiative, called the "Domestic Partnership Initiative," would remove the term "marriage" from government legislation. It claims its purpose is to "provide equality amongst all couples, regardless of sexual orientation, without offending the religious sect." Marriage, then, would become a social ceremony recognized only by non-governmental institutions instead of a legal bond.
The second proposal would repeal Prop. 8 and remove the state constitution's wording that defines marriage as between a man and a woman. However, it adds that it does not intend to force any clergy to perform any service incongruent with his faith.
To qualify for the 2010 ballot, either initiative would require nearly 700,000 signatures of registered California voters. Randy Thomasson, president of the Campaign for Children and Families, says neither one will make the ballot.
"One of them is an unpopular idea, even with homosexual activists, of getting rid of marriage entirely as a government institution," he explains. "The other would get rid of Proposition 8, opening the door for the legislature run by Democrats to create homosexual marriage again and have a Democrat governor in the future sign it."
Thomasson points out why he believes neither proposal is a serious attempt to challenge Proposition 8, which defines marriage as between one man and one woman. "They are promotional stunts," he notes. "They're trying to get the attention of the judges who have a little under 90 days to decide and issue a decision on Proposition 8."
Freepmail wagglebee or DirtyHarryY2K to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda ping list.
Be sure to click the FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search link for a list of all related articles. We don't ping you to all related articles so be sure to click the previous link to see the latest articles.
Add keywords homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list.
Checkout: http://SilencingChristians.com
I agree. This lame posturing ranks right up there with the homo-fascists' farcical threat to deny marriage to the infertile or elderly, or any other man/woman couple who can't procreate.
I don't think the homo-nazis will get even 500k signatures.
It’s war, and the left believes in winning by any means necessary.
The first idea sounds good to me - that’s what I’ve always suggested should be done. Marriage is a religious institution and there’s no reason for the state to get involved.
Then go live in the hell hole that California would surely become if something like this were to pass.
THIS IS NOT A MATTER OF “EQUALITY”.
There could be many legal routes to “equality” under the law, and the voters and legislature of California provided it, under the states current Domestic Partnership statute.
What the opponents of Prop-8 seek is not for registered same-sex relationships to be treated “equal” but to be declared the “same as” a marriage relationship.
The terms “equal” and same do not mean the same thing; to be equal it is not necessary to be artificially declared “same as” something which one is obviously not “same as”.
Social conservatives have been right all along. The legal radicals use of the gay agenda is not about gays or their agenda - the leftists don’t really give a dam about them - it has, all along, been an assault on marriage.
The foundation of marriage IS derived from the biology and socially required responsibilities derived having children.
If human reproduction had been arranged differently and if the needs and maturation-rate of human children were different, it is possible that marriage would not have developed, as it has, and conversely, it is primarily due to those elements that it exists now.
The beginning and end of those elements and the responsibilities that flow therefrom are not contained, not fully defined, not fully required by the simple notion of the romantically committed couple.
Are there marriages without children? Yes. Are children possible to couples in ways other than natural child birth? Yes.
But those are exceptions, permitted exceptions and not foundational to the basic institution of marriage, of why it was instituted and why it will always be needed and why it needs to be protected.
Exactly. In fact, Michelangelo Signorile of The Village Voice made that same point -- admission, if you will -- in an article 10 years ago.
Marriage is "heteronormative"; that's why it has to go. It is a massive, monumental reminder that homosex is deviant and abnormal, its practitioners a tiny, hostile minority.
I go to Massachusetts on a regular basis for business, and gay marriage has had exactly zero effect on the state. There are already plenty of gay cohabiting couples in every state; the level of legal protection won’t do anything to change it. California will be exactly the same regardless of one, both, or neither of these initiatives pass.
Your response makes no sense. How does removing the state from marriage lead to state-sanctioned polygamy or pedophilia? Also, the pedophilia argument (as well as the bestiality argument, which you did not make, but others have) are red herrings, because neither one would be applicable to two consenting adults. As for polygamy, nothing is really stopping people from taking multiple “wives” right now, just out of the eyes of the state, much like there are gay couples who function like a married couple despite the lack of legal recognition. Neither one is really my cup of tea, but it’s none of my business.
Yep, just go ahead and play into their hands, why don’t you?
The goal is the destruction of the traditional, nuclear family.
I used to be libertarian, until I realized that apathy in the face of advancing evil was dangerous and destructive to liberty.
We need a Federal Amendment to Protect Marriage.
“Marriage is “heteronormative”; that’s why it has to go. It is a massive, monumental reminder that homosex is deviant and abnormal, its practitioners a tiny, hostile minority.”
No, your point is too “homosexually” pointed.
The end-point, of the radical legal agenda, will be to legitimize polygamy as well as “group” marriage and possibly even end all “marriage” restrictions related to close (by blood) family relationships, including incest.
The radical process is NOT about and NOT in service of a “gay agenda”. It is about the destruction of marriage. Everything else, including any “gay agenda” are just useful idiot tools in the process.
Its an institution with a legal existence. It’s not only a “government” institution (in fact that’s only a minor aspect of what it is) but it does have a definition under law. Obviously. That is what the argument is about.
ok. Radical gays make me sick
Oh to be sure. They are horrific people.
You could always work it the other way round. During the period of English history known as the interregnum, the radicial puritan republicans made marriage into a completely secular institution. It was actually illegal to get married in a church.
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.