San Diego News stations reporting fight against gay marriage in CA via Constitutional Amendment

There will be a proposition on the November ballot to amend the CA Constitution to restrict marriage to a man and a woman.

http://www.10news.com/news/16278098/detail.html

"Two groups, ProtectMarriage.com and VoteYesMarriage.com, are gathering signatures to qualify a measure for the ballot, which if approved by voters would amend the California Constitution to designate marriage as strictly between a man and a woman.

Ron Prentice, chairman of ProtectMarriage.com, said in a statement that the court's ruling should "prompt outrage from the majority of California's citizens," adding that it "undermined" the will of the people.

"In November, the people will have an opportunity to overrule the court's decision by passing a constitutional amendment and California's voters must respond by voting," Prentice said."



Oh, and that guy who is fighting against the Starbucks logo was also interviewed in another news story.

How about one limiting marriage to a man, a woman, and an iguana. And a man and a can of corn. And a woman, a wombat, and a whelk? And a man and a manatee and a moose?

I'm thinking "No on Proposition 234! No on Proposition 456! Yes on Proposition 943! No on . . . wait a minute . . . is it 543 or 345 . . ." etc., etc.

Typical CA electoral chaos, and endless opportunities for bad jokes. It doesn't get any better.

Lots of wackos talking about marriage being created "by God".

I think it was in fact a nudist wedding.

"And finally among the lamellibranch bivalves, that most depraved of the whole sub-species — the whelk! The whelk is nothing but a ho-mo-sexual of the worst kind! This gay boy of the gastropods, this queer crustacean, this mincing mollusc, this screaming, prancing, limp-wristed queen of the deep makes me sick!"

I use it at parties all the time.

Institutionalized Marriage is complete fucking bullshit. Instead of making it legal for gay people to get married, the legal system should just stop legitimizing religious ceremonies and just allow any pair or group of people to file as domestic partners.

As long as domestic partnership covers the same vast legal territory that marriage does.

That would also address a long-term bee in my bonnet: I'm completely in favor of gay marriage, but opposed to domestic partnerships. I think if you're going to get the shared insurance, property rights, and health care decisionmaking, etc., etc., then the commitment should be as profound and binding as marriage is supposed to be. Banning marriage as a legal entity in favor of comprehensive domestic partnerships would address that tidily.

In reality, however, I don't think you can separate the ceremonial and/or religious and/or communal aspect of marriage from the legal. As a public commitment of persons to one another, it's too deeply engrained in almost every human society to be extirpated.

Hence the necessity of "adding" gay marriage to the mix rather than transitioning to domestic partnerships as the only legal recognition of such relationships.

no biggie.

.... Isn't Ahhhnuld slashing education budgets in Cali? All the while the real estate market continues to tank....and gas prices are reaching astronomical levels?

Their war of cultural wedge issues will crash and burn. :nuke:

...

The secretary of state's office is verifying the signatures on the petitions, and you know how "careful" freepers are about such things.

I have little doubt the haters will get it to a vote, but I've sworn to work against them.



:patriot:

if it passes too. California liberals like to portray their state as so progressive, but outside of San Fransisco and L.A. it is as red as a tomato.

Didn't a hate amendment hurt Kerry in OH? (We know he really won anyway, but still...)

That could favor McCain.

http://ag.ca.gov/cms_attachments/initiatives/pdfs/i769_07-0098.pdf

"Only marriage between one man and one woman is valid or recognized in California, whether contracted in this state or elsewhere. A man is an adult male human being who possesses at least one inherited Y chromosome, and a woman is an adult female human being who does not possess an inherited Y chromosome. Neither the Legislature nor any court, government institution, government agency, initiative statute, local government, or government official shall abolish the civil institution of marriage between one man and one woman, or decrease statutory rights, incidents, or employee benefits of marriage shared by one man and one woman, or require private entities to offer or provide rights, incidents, or benefits of marriage to unmarried individuals, or bestow statutory rights, incidents, or employee benefits of marriage on unmarried individuals. Any public act, record, or judicial proceeding, from within this state or another jurisdiction, that violates this section is void and unenforceable "

fuck thats evil - takes away everything gays already have - no civil unions or domestic parterships....

But all the hard won rights that are already there.

This has got to be stopped.

Too bad they're not only discriminating against gays and lesbians with it. What about women with Swyer Syndrome? XX males? Hermaphrodites?

Wasn't there one western state that had a gay marriage amendment that was too harsh (I forget in what way, restricting rights other then marriage) that ended up failing because of that?