Wednesday, August 03, 2005

California's Marriage Woes

So, a group called is now suing California's Attorney General because they believe he has summarized their petition to ban gay marriage unfairly. Read what they had to say here.

I personally think he did a good job of saying what the petition will actually do, while they were the ones being untrue to its real scope.

Here is what they say:
"Lockyer completely ignores the chief points of the Voters’ Right to Protect Marriage Initiative. He omits how the proposed constitutional amendment would prohibit the abolishment of marriage, and leaves out how it would protect private organizations and businesses from being required to undermine or diminish marriage."


"Lockyer uses the word "elimination" when the whole issue is the protection of marriage..."

Now, to me this marriage ammendment isn't about the protection of marriage, it is about the elimination of domestic partner rights for gays. The only thing these guys at VoteYesMarriage claim won't be eliminated from current DP rights is hospital visititation. Everything else goes.

Sounds like elimination to me.

But, protection? If they were really trying to "protect marriage" maybe they would do away with divorce, or at least no-fault divorce. Maybe they would do away with sham marriages, common law marriages, and overnight marriages. Let's be honest, this has nothing to do with protection marriages, at least not on it's face. It will not immediately protect anything, but it will immediately eliminate current DP rights.

And what is this about protecting marriage from being abolished? Hi, chicken little, meet reality.

Then they go into some tangent about the law not requiring businesses to undermine marriage. Seriously, how are businesses currently required to undermine marriage?

"Hello, sir, I am a police officer, and I am arresting you for refusing to undermine marriage. That's the law around here. If you don't undermine marriage, you're going to jail."

I can't even take this. They end this little press release by calling the Attorney General a "Bay Area Liberal." What does that even mean? I guess that is like a Massachusetts Liberal. Uh oh. I probably shouldn't take these guys too seriously.


At 3/8/05 4:24 PM, Blogger Stojef2005 said...

Great blog.

I follow the right-wingnuts attempts to "save marriage" and have often wondered why they would never pass a constitutional amendment banning divorce or limiting the number of times a person can marry. Clearly, they would never hold heterosexuals to the same standards as they hold homosexuals to. Who does the government think it is telling heterosexuals who to marry??!!

The good news - so far - is that until the lawsuit that has been filed against the AG has been settled, no petitions can be signed. Here's hoping it can be stalled long enough so that someone can figure out a way to stop it.

It seems to me, that if this thing does pass, one way around it would be for the California legislature to define the rights of marriage to include only the issuance of marriage license. To get all the other rights, a couple would have to enter in to some sort of civil agreement.

What I have never truly understood is why the rights of homosexuals are always allowed to come up for a vote. Why can't anyone put a stop to that? Is it really democratic to vote to deny someone participation in a democratic society?

At 3/8/05 6:38 PM, Blogger Brady said...

Hey Stojef,

Thanks. I agree with all of that. It seems just a bit disingenious to make something that has traditionally been unconstitutional become constitutional just by passing a vote. That is how we are set up here, but it just seems a bit absurd.


Post a Comment

<< Home