PROP 8 ballot wording rewritten: to ELIMINATE RIGHT of Same-Sex Couples to Marry.

Outstanding

because Proposition 9 could well "change the constitution to eliminate divorced persons right to marry" if we travel just a bit further down the road to Dominionism.

By the way on Chalcedon, the Domionist home page, is a quote by the First Chief Justice John Jay(who quit to become NY Gov) extolling America as a Christian nation.

They left out that this inspired leader also repeatedly tried to introduce bills barring Roman Catholics from office...

I tell you Chica that no greater abomination exists than women denying their spirit of sisterhood and instead becoming the oppressor. -Rebeca, Universidad Complutense de Madrid

---

by: MauraHennessey @ Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 15:16:00 PM CDT

I am sorry to be so dim but....

Could someone possibly explain this to me?  I get it that the proposition got new wording - ok I am good there.  

Orion45 indicates this wording is a good thing?  Huh?  it doesn't read positively to me at all.

Next orion45 indicates that it should be attacked from this angle - What angle?  I totally missed this boat.


History never actually repeats itself -but it rhymes, (Twain)

---

by: cybelline1 @ Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 15:23:34 PM CDT

Cybelline1..I know.

I had a bit of trouble comprehending why this is 'good.'  From the perspective of 'those in the legal know'...it is good because it acknowledges that the CSC has stated that they have interpreted the current Constitution to allow marriage of anyone to anyone else.

So the Amendment will basically Alter the standing constitution. If the Amendment loses (we hope) then, thats it.

If the Amendment passes, then there will be another Constitutional question of whether a right can be taken away.

So this means EQ CA can use ads to ask that people not take away this RIGHT.

Heaven only knows whether the 'threat' of losing gay marriage $$$ will cause anyone to vote differently, but it may. 

It's the Hammer of JUSTICE,
It's the Bell of FREEDOM,
It's the Song about LOVE between,
my Brothers and my Sisters
...All over this Land.

---

by: Orion45 @ Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 15:47:27 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

oh now that really is a cool development

Thank you for clarifying that!!

History never actually repeats itself -but it rhymes, (Twain)

---

by: cybelline1 @ Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 16:32:24 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'll give it a shot

The old wording first:

[Prop 8] Amends the California Constitution to provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

That was it.

The new wording makes it clear that passing this measure will, in the short term, mean higher taxes, less services, and more trouble down the road.

It makes it clear that when you vote yes, you are removing a right -- taking something away from someone.

Although all of that old one is still present, it is made a little clearer what it is talking about.

with all of this, the thing that scares me, personally, the most is the manner of enforcement, though.

How will they enforce the man and woman rule?  What standard will they use?

http://www.dyssonance.com  Breaking all the rules...

---

by: dyssonance @ Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 15:50:34 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

thank you

That makes more sense.

History never actually repeats itself -but it rhymes, (Twain)

---

by: cybelline1 @ Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 16:31:07 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The Christian Right's usual standard

Ward and June Cleaver

I tell you Chica that no greater abomination exists than women denying their spirit of sisterhood and instead becoming the oppressor. -Rebeca, Universidad Complutense de Madrid

---

by: MauraHennessey @ Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 21:11:47 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

enforcement is easy

city halls would stop issuing marriage licenses to ss couples, just like in the bad old days a few months ago.  also, the state would reject income tax filings from married ss couples.  people could still go to canada or wherever and get married, but there would be no official governmental recognition of that marriage.  additionally, businesses wouldn't need to respect those marriages either.

Lurleen on Twitter

---

by: Lurleen @ Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 21:13:59 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

To enforce it, though, you would have to define man and woman.

And then prove it.

http://www.dyssonance.com  Breaking all the rules...

---

by: dyssonance @ Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 22:31:03 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Well, that would be one of many lawsuits wouldn't it.

---

by: Karen in Kalifornia @ Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 22:46:26 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

many states

have been happy to just go with what is on a birth certificate.  i see your point and i agree with what you're getting at, but i'm skeptical that any court would require anything more than this for people wanting to get married.

Lurleen on Twitter

---

by: Lurleen @ Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 09:46:07 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yeah, it would be, and yes, they would, but...

the birth certificate can be changed.

And it is easier than folks realize, often, as it merely needs a court order.

Yes, a lawsuit would be happening, without worry.

What does worry me is that I've seen the marriage rights of transsexuals eroded in this fight on these grounds.

What does worry me is I've seen the ability of men and women to live as themselves destroyed by such questions -- and, worst of all, situations where a state recognizes them as having two genders, or more, legally. Not merely TS, but IS, too. Intersex people have the same issues changing birth certificates that ts people do.

Of course, this simply serves to make me really want the prop to die a painful, horrible death.

But it is a valid question, and one that needs to be raised, as it will come to a point where it counts. Perhaps not in CA, but elsewhere...

http://www.dyssonance.com  Breaking all the rules...

---

by: dyssonance @ Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 06:25:22 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

To enforce it, though, you would have to define man and woman.

And then prove it.

http://www.dyssonance.com  Breaking all the rules...

---

by: dyssonance @ Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 22:31:03 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

that was incredibly favorable wording

Congrats that wording is probably worth 2 to 4 points.

---

by: dsc999 @ Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 17:05:19 PM CDT

More than that

Actually, in at least one poll, support for Proposition 8 fell a full ten points when the new wording was substituted for the original version!

It's a big difference between the neutral-sounding "defines marriage as being between a man and a woman" and actually eliminating rights for a whole class of people.  I guess people really think twice when it's rephrased as eliminating someone's existing rights.  This is definitely great news!

---

by: popebuck1 @ Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 15:15:33 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Wow

Who requested the wording change? The anti-8 forces, the pro-8 forces? Or did the atty. general's office do it on their own? Protectmarriage dot com doesn't seem to have anything on the change yet. (Although they do have a flashy new layout including two graphics of children and the header "Restoring Marriage and Protecting California Children").

---

by: mcc @ Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 20:28:34 PM CDT

My guess...

is that the fundies are not happy with the new wording.  They'd rather couch their discrimination in terms of "protecting" marriage and making the world safe for democracy.  I doubt very much they're going to be happy with wording that truthfully spells out what they are actually trying to do.

---

by: Morry @ Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 21:14:19 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

True

I was on a California conservative web blog and they were not happy to see the ballot to be re-written for the truth.

"4,600,000 Californians voted to define marriage as the Union of
1 man and 1 woman.

Then.....4 arrogant judges threw out those 4 million votes.

So, whose "Rights" were violated, Ms. Bowen?."

I said to the person, did the rights of people who supported housing discrimination get violated when Proposition 14 got repealed?

Anyways the person who wrote the diary entry is an employee of one of California's favorite fundie groups Capitol Resource Institute was not happy that Bowen was biased, but maybe she was unhappy that Bowen was showing the voters the truth. I may not agree with Bowen all the time, but I thought Bowen was telling like it is.  

---

by: mmunson @ Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 21:56:03 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The Fundies Newspeak Reworded

A lot of bloggers here and elswhere have been misled about Prop. 22 and its relationship to the CSC In Re. Marriages Cases ruling. But that's what the Fundies have wanted all along. I worked for the No on Knight campaign in 2000, so let me clarify some things.

Prop. 22 did not define marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Prop. 22 only recognized marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

Prior to 1977, California Civil Code section 4100 (predecessor to California Family Code section 300) defined marriage as:
"a personal relation arising out of a civil context, to which consent of the parties making that contract is necessary."
In 1977, the legislature amended section 300 to define marriage as:
"a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between a man and a woman, to which the consent of the parties capable of making that contract is necessary."

Even though the definition of who may marry explicitly prevented same-sex marriage in California, a separate provision, section 308, recognized marriages contracted elsewhere:
"A marriage contracted outside this state that would be valid by the laws of the jurisdiction in which the marriage was contracted is valid in this state."
Prop 22 added a new section, codified at section 308.5, that reads:
"Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."
It was first test case of a state DOMA and they knew if they could get it passed in CA they would have no problem in the other 49. That's why they truly fear this defeat.

I know it's a battle of semantics but it will screw with their heads.

It's ironic that Jerry Brown signed the 1977 law (the same year Harvey Milk was elected to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors)and now he is drafting the title for the amendment.
Good Luck guys, I'll keep donating as much as I can. I wish I was still there to help more.

I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they've always worked for me. Hunter S.

---

by: txwhtboy @ Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 04:48:11 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Whimpering fundies

I was on a Libertarian (of all places) blog the other day where a poster called the CA Supreme Court decision "government tyranny." He was going on and on about how straight people's rights had been violated by allowing same-sex marriage. I can't, for the life of me, figure out that twisted argument.

Tax the Christian Taliban!

---

by: Wolfgang @ Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 16:01:54 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Couching discrimination

Mcc wrote, "They'd rather couch their discrimination in terms of "protecting" marriage and making the world safe for democracy."

And of course, they only like democracy when it works in their favor. If/when Prop. 8 fails, the fundies will no doubt find reasons to whine about the democratic system.

I think there's a good chance it will fail. This was written even before the wording change:
http://www.latimes.com/news/op...

That doesn't mean we shouldn't do everything in our power to help it fail, however. For me, knowing that we can succeed is empowering.  

Tax the Christian Taliban!

---

by: Wolfgang @ Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 15:55:35 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Follow The Leader

Of course they don't want people to know the truth, unless it's the truth they dictate.  They prefer voters to be Lemmings that follow their base, bigoted instincts right over the cliff.

---

by: Jon Michaels @ Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 21:54:53 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Attorney General's Office

Two years ago when a there was a push to put an anti gay amendment on the ballot, then Att. General Lockyer named them "Elimination of Domestic Partnerships"...the fundies didn't like that either...ballot initiative was withdrawn (most say at Arnuld's request because he had a quartet of initiatives he was pushing and didn't want this on the ballot....all four failed then too, he he).
2005 quote:

Sacramento Superior Court Judge Raymond Cadei on Thursday ordered California Attorney General Bill Lockyer to clarify wording of a proposed constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriage and revoke many rights currently in place for domestic partners.

Proponents of the initiative want to emphasize their goal of keeping intact a state law preventing same-sex couples from marrying. But Lockyer and opponents of the measure argued the wording should highlight that the amendment would roll back many established domestic partner rights for same-sex couples, including child custody, health and insurance benefits and communal property rights.

From the bench Judge Cadei seemed to agree, saying, "The initiative seems to put a fairly large bull's eye on domestic partnership rights in the family code."

The Liberty Counsel had filed the lawsuit on behalf of the VoteYesMarriage.com Marriage Amendment, asking for changes to Lockyer's wording of the title and summary of the ballot measure.

"The Attorney General failed to carry out his duty to prepare a neutral, factual title and summary, which would have prevented a fair vote on this important issue," said Mathew Staver, president and general counsel of the Liberty Counsel. "The people deserve the chance to vote to protect marriage rights."

Liberty Counsel's Matt Staver, ADF's Glen Levy, Campaign for Children and Family's (unless you're a gay child or family) Randy Thominson,...all the usual suspects.

---

by: Karen in Kalifornia @ Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 21:57:17 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Be Glad Lundgren Is No Longer AG

He would've let them be a few hundred thousand signatures short and put it on the ballot. The law says:

CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE
ELECTIONS CODE
SECTION 9050-9054

9051. Any person who is interested in any proposed measure may at any time, prior to 150 days before the election at which the measure is to be voted upon, file a copy of it with the Secretary of State, together with a request that a ballot title be prepared for it...........Within 10 days after it is filed, the Attorney General shall provide and return to the Secretary of State a ballot title for the measure.  The ballot title may differ from the legislative or other title of the measure and shall express in not exceeding 100 words the purpose of the measure. In providing the ballot title, the Attorney General shall give a true and impartial statement of the purpose of the measure in such language that the ballot title shall neither be an argument, nor be likely to create prejudice, for or against the proposed measure.

Jerry Brown is just following the law.

I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they've always worked for me. Hunter S.

---

by: txwhtboy @ Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 03:29:28 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Defeating Prop. 8 is our most important task.

 
If we lose it'll be a national loss and not just for those who think marriage is important. It'll be a demoralizing  body blow to the GLBT commnities and at the same time a huge invigorating win for the theocrats.

All our energies should be thrown into defeating Prop. 8.  That fight is vastly more important than electing another  pigheaded opponent of same sex marriage like Obama or McCain. Weren't Clinton and Bush bad enough? Do we really deserve four-eight more years of rule by religious right-centrists like McCAin and Obama?  

The looter rich much prefer working with Democrats like Obama and the Clintons - they're greedier, they fool more people and they're able to get away with a lot more than Republicans.  

---

by: donal1944 @ Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 06:32:22 AM CDT

Seeing as these people claim Christ as their model

how long before they propose amendments to ban marriage after divorce, and ban divorce itself?

Matthew 5:31,32; Matthew 19:9, Mark 10:11,12; Luke 18:18

That's Jesus himself saying marriage is forever, and that "marriages" after divorce are really adultery.

I don't believe it's right to enshrine religious doctrine in secular law, but for my money, divorce is a far greater threat to marriage. Why didn't they start with divorce?

Oh yeah, too many of their heroes do it.

Offenders include Ronald Wilson Reagan, Newton Leroy Gingrich (nee McPherson), and John Sidney McCain III.

---

Claim to fame: Posted first PHB diary to be demoted

---

by: cindik @ Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 06:46:35 AM CDT

"Prop. H8" is still bigotry, no matter how altered it is.

Those bigoted elitists are desperately trying to install "traditional marriage" into the California legal system, no matter how the proposition is written.

---

by: Blood From Machines @ Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 12:06:37 PM CDT

Yeah, but...

Now Californians get to see exactly what they are voting for when they go out on November 4th. Before this change, the fundies could more readily cast the "protect marriage" spotlight on it, and force attention away from any other possible effects. As it is now, however, Californians will read that they are to vote on a measure that is expressly designed to eliminate a right that has already been granted by the highest court in the state, and that, if passed, will have a  tangible negative impact on the state's economy. Is it bigoted? Yes, undeniably. But if you're a voter in California with no real vested interest in either side, which way would you be more likely to vote? And in the end, it's going to be these voters who send this horrid proposition over the cliff edge to the jagged rocks below.

Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. ~ Isaac Asimov

---

by: Baldran @ Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 20:52:03 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

first of all...

 Jesus and Paul were not married men. Second of all, Prop 8 IS about discrimination. Maintaining the definition between one man and one woman WOULD have to define what the ROLE OF GENDER is in marriage. And there is none. And how would that be legislated?

 It's assumed, and artificially constructed at best.

 Ask someone who is against marriage equality what a man or woman's gender role in marriage is, and you get reductions down to sexual organs and their placement and babymaking. Which, in a marriage is EXTREMELY private in how all that functions or doesn't.

 And again, not something appropriate to legislate, let alone use as part of a Constitution.
Anyhoo, language is very important. If the traditions of marriage are something to these folks, then the traditon of Constitutions and amendments are MORESO, and messing with it in this manner is inappropriate and doesn't serve the purpose of 'saving' marriage OR it's intended result anyway.

  All the amendment does IS discriminate, so why not just say SO?
Does the anti gay faction have such a problem with HONESTY in language and purpose?

---

by: Regan DuCasse @ Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 18:06:52 PM CDT

Which is a good organization to donate to fight Prop 8?

Hi All,

Not exactly a response to this post, but relevant nevertheless...

I am planning to donate to a CA group that is fighting
to defeat Prop 8 this Nov.
Any suggestions on which org to donate to - somewhere my $$ will go the most?
I only know of EqCA (I don't live in CA).

Thanks.

---

by: troposphere @ Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 20:13:03 PM CDT

Thanks for helping

Equality for All is the coalition organization fighting the amendment.  Even EQCA will direct you to this organization I believe.
http://www.equalityforall.com/...

---

by: Karen in Kalifornia @ Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 20:52:05 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

EQCA's donation page

has a link to a special page dedicated just to the No on Prop 8 effort.  I believe that those funds go to Equality For All.  So, giving to either org will help defeat the prop.

Lurleen on Twitter

---

by: Lurleen @ Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 21:11:37 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

EQCA is good

And if you do it through here, you can even choose to donate on behalf of a couple of your choice who's registered with them.

---

by: Darkrose @ Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 21:01:02 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Thanks troposphere,

It's all needed and counts, and will help. We should see ads out soon. 

It's the Hammer of JUSTICE,
It's the Bell of FREEDOM,
It's the Song about LOVE between,
my Brothers and my Sisters
...All over this Land.

---

by: Orion45 @ Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 22:33:40 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Thanks for the advice folks

I just donated on the Equality for All website. Here's hoping - nay, believing - the Proposition will be defeated come November.

---

by: troposphere @ Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 20:58:32 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Jennifer Kerns and ProtectMarriage to file objection to title change tomorrow.

Looks like Kerns is earning her anti gay pay check.

Opponents of gay marriage will challenge measure's ballot summary
By AURELIO ROJAS | McClatchy Newspapers • Published July 28, 2008

Proponents of a ballot measure to ban same-sex marriages in California plan to appear in court Tuesday to challenge state Attorney General Jerry Brown's rewording of the measure's ballot summary.

On the petitions that signature gatherers circulated last year to qualify the measure for the Nov. 4 ballot, it was described as a "Limit on Marriage."

But Brown's new title and summary of Proposition 8, posted on the Secretary of State's Website on July 22, states the proposed constitutional amendment "Eliminates right of same-sex couples to marry."

The summary still states Proposition 8 provides that "only marriage between a man a woman is valid or recognized in California."

The titles and summaries of ballot measures are typically scrutinized by both sides in a campaign and often challenged in court if one side feels the wording could sway voters against them.

Jennifer Kerns, a spokeswoman for the Yes on Proposition 8, confirmed proponents "will file a ballot challenge (Tuesday in) Superior Court in Sacramento."

In an e-mail, Kerns declined to state "what specifically we will challenge" and said the campaign would "not be releasing any additional information until (Tuesday)."

Gareth Lacy, a spokesman for the attorney general, said the title was reworded because of a state Supreme Court ruling in May that overturned a ban on gay marriages in California.

"We had a very significant Supreme Court decision and the title and summary accurately reflect the measure," Lacy said.

He said the Attorney General's Office regularly changes "title and summaries to make them as accurate as possible at the time of the election."

Opponents of Proposition 8 said that although changes to ballot measures are subject to legal challenge, the attorney general's rewording accurately describes what the measure would do.

Steve Smith, a strategist for the No on 8 campaign, said he is working on two other measures on the November ballot and the title and summary for "all three were changed."

http://www.theolympian.com/nat...

---

by: Karen in Kalifornia @ Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 21:06:13 PM CDT

MONEY Coming from Out of State too.

This from SF GATE:  If money can come in for PROP 8... it can also come in against:

When Bruce Bastian of Utah stood up Saturday night at a San Francisco dinner and wrote a $1 million check for the campaign AGAINST Proposition 8, he made it clearer than ever that November's ballot fight over a ban on same-sex marriage won't be a California-only affair.

Bastian grew up in a conservative, Mormon family in Twin Falls, Idaho. He went on a mission for the church and received his bachelor's and master's degrees from Mormon-sponsored Brigham Young University. But he has been at odds with the church's view on homosexuality since coming out as a gay man.
The Mormon church has spoken strongly in favor of Prop. 8. In a June 20 letter, the church's top leaders called on California Mormons to "do all you can to support the proposed constitutional amendment by donating of your means and time."
That means something, Bastian said at Saturday night's dinner.
"One thing I learned as a Mormon was that preaching costs money," Bastian said. "The Mormons will raise a lot of money to support Proposition 8 in November."
Bastian, who lives in Orem, Utah, felt he had to level the financial playing field.
"You can't change people's minds. They have to change them for themselves," he said. "If people are shown the truth and have fear taken out of the equation, I believe they will stand up for what's good and fair."

Thanks to all who want to fight it.

It's the Hammer of JUSTICE,
It's the Bell of FREEDOM,
It's the Song about LOVE between,
my Brothers and my Sisters
...All over this Land.

---

by: Orion45 @ Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 22:39:58 PM CDT

Equality For All

already has received my big fat (for me) contribution, and I'm from out of state.  What happens with Prop 8 will affect the entire nation.  If we can preserve marriage equality in CA, our defeat of the anti-equality haters has begun in earnest because our voter-sanctioned retention of rights in the world's 7th largest economy will grease the skids of pro-equality efforts in NY, NJ and perhaps NH and others.  So non-Californians have real reason to contribute heavily to the No on 8 campaign.

Lurleen on Twitter

---

by: Lurleen @ Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 22:51:47 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Agreed

I could not agree more.  This is the battle ground, the battle will make a big difference in how things turn out (and when),  and money will make a difference.  I am another out-of-state contributor.  (And I am glad to see Obama fundraising so well because my Equality contribution came out of what I have been putting aside for the Dem nominee.)

---

by: tony @ Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 23:36:39 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

speaking of obama,

anyone know how his campaign canvassers have been instructed to answer prop 8 questions?  obama made that quiet comment in opposition to the proposition a month or so ago, but also keeps loudly talking states rights.  it will be important from which direction his canvassers approach their answer.  in my view, they could vitally influence the outcome.

Lurleen on Twitter

---

by: Lurleen @ Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 12:26:07 PM CDT

[ Parent ]