Another Marriage Petition Cleared For California

SACRAMENTO — The sponsors of a second ballot measure seeking to repeal California's ban on same-sex marriage have been cleared to start collecting signatures.

The secretary of state on Friday gave the group Yes on Equality until Aug. 17 to collect the nearly 700,000 signatures needed to qualify its initiative for the 2010 ballot.

If approved by voters, the group's proposed constitutional amendment would rescind Proposition 8, which passed last November. The California Supreme Court is expected to rule soon on legal challenges to the voter-approved measure.

Earlier this month, two Southern California college students got permission to start circulating petitions for a separate initiative that would end all marriage as a state-sanctioned institution and instead make couples _ gay or straight _ eligible only for domestic partnerships.

Comments

[WorkingClass]

California's referendums are why she is broke. Legislation by popular opinion is not a good idea.

[Perry Clease]

Okay, I have been a California resident, and voter, since 1970. Just how is the fault of the referendum process the reason for our budget problems.

As to legislation by popular opinion not being a good idea, what is a good idea? The State Constitution?

[yoshi99]

Well, Prop. 13 (or whatever the no-property-tax-hikes-allowed prop is) has pretty much bankrupt the state. The concept of amending the state constitution with a simple majority just results in mob rule.

[Hirnlego]

"However, on religious issues there can be little or no compromise. There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being.But like any powerful weapon, the use of God's name on one's behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growingthroughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom.They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on aparticular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both. I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to bea moral person, I must believe in "A," "B," "C," and "D." Just who dothey think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me? And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of "conservatism." Goldwater

[Phong Long]

i personally am wondering when moral, conservative, and traditional became the Politically Correct way of asking, "are you christian?"

[invisible figment]

Stupidity exists of both sides of the fence! A traditional marriage is between a man and a woman and they procreate and become a family. I am shocked that this simple statement offends people! Just because you are two women or two men who decide to promise yourselves to each other does not mean you love each other any less than a man and a woman. Two men or two women can become a family by adopting children. The obvious difference between a man and a woman being a family and same sex families is that men and women procreate.

Tell me if I am wrong, but I do not see legislation being able to take away procreation. I think people in traditional man and woman marriages see same sex marriages as an assault to their union. I feel as though same sex marriages and those who support them want to take away something or want to feel vindicated for their needs and desires to be equal. The true equality here is love not a title.

You can not legislate love, or procreation. This is why California has same sex protection laws and allows all the benefits of marriage to same sex couples. People are trying to legislate the meaning of marriage so that it does not address procreation and only love. Perhaps we should leave the term marriage behind and just have types of unions? Union 1, Union 2, etc.

[TheHandyman]

You are wrong! To define marriage based on the ability of a woman and a man to procreate is as falacious as defining a cow by its color. And the notion that a hetero couple should be allowed to claim that their marriage is somehow threatened by a gay couple marrying is as absurd a notion that I can be offended by the way you wipe your bu.tt and that it somehow is a real problem. Supposedly Europeans believed that the world was flat, that didn't make it so and neither does this. What this is is some nonsense stirred up by religious nut jobs who think that ignorance and fear is the desired state of humanity. And no amount of postulating nonsense such as yours is going to prevent gays from attaining the right that they already have, to get married.

[StopCensoringMe]

I'll go one further...you CAN legislate procreation...or at least the ability to bring it to term. The Chinese do it. I, for one, would not mind one bit seeing some form of legislative hurdle erected to keep the dithering masses from procreating willy-nilly (see: Suleman). The planet is over-taxed as it is. There is no imperative for having children. None. Simply the ego-driven blindness of seeing Junior look like one's self, having children is akin to wanting the latest Gucci bag or chihuahua. There should be a threshhold for who is allowed to bear the burden and responsibility of bringing a child into this world. The mere possession of slippery bits is not adequate. And, please don't interject that its "Gawd's Will."

[Phong Long]

legislating marriage between a man and a woman for purposes of procreation.

so what next? do we have mandatory fertility tests to make sure a man and a woman can conceive? a 2 year time limit for first child, with penalty of jail, fine, and annulment of said marriage if no such procreation event occurs?

[HHarvey]

This is why California has same sex protection laws and allows all the benefits of marriage to same sex couples.

Wrong! Who have you been listening to? I'm straight, but have gay members in my family and live with them in my own community. My children go to school with their children. They DO NOT have the same rights. They cannot file tax returns the same as marrieds, nor can they claim medicare benefits or social security benefits from a deceased spouse as many marrieds do. This is the truth in the nutshell. It's about finances and you are correct. We should only call it marriage if it is church related or better yet let's have civil unions get the same benefits as "married couples". That would end this whole stupid mess.

[carsntrucks]

You know why they can't file tax returns "the same way as marrieds" and claim medicare benefits and social security benefits from a decreased spouse "as many marrieds do"?

BECAUSE THOSE AREN'T RIGHTS IN THE FIRST PLACE. THEY ARE PRIVILEGES. PRIVILEGES THAT ARE SUBJECT TO GOVERNMENT REGULATION. THERE IS NO RIGHT TO SOCIAL SECURITY OR TAX BREAKS. NONE WHATSOEVER.

[Citizen-Jane]

Way to go California. 2010. This time take nothing for granted. Come out. Come out wherever you are and take your message to all the citizens of California.

Go into the African American,communities and ask the "down lows" to come out of the closet so that they can see that they are discriminating against their friends and family members. Put everybody on front street. Recruit out celebrities and celebities who are sympathetic to gay marriage rights. Get them and yourselves in front of the cameras starting now for all the world to see.

Marriage is not owned or defined by religious institutions so much as they seem to think. Research and fight for your rights until you get what is owed to you. Your human rights. No country should ever
have a right to discriminate against its citizens based on sexual orientation, race, gender, or age.

Do not let the hypocritical religious institutionalized bigotry rule the law of the land.

[KickCongressOut]

I think marriage is the best term because it connotes love and family - and it should be for gays and straights both.

[jerryfromcalifornia]

Utah buys the most porn...............Moral???

[Phong Long]

they're clearly buying it all up so they can destroy it.

[joebloe]

The only problem with marriage only being a religious ceremony is that most laws refer to marriage and married persons. They do not refer to domestic relationships, which would make anyone who is "married" no longer married when filing taxes, custody, and visitation issues.

We just need to make it legal for any consenting adult to get married irregardless of their gender.

[SD Indy]

JB, I think that is part of the objective. This would finally force the federal government to address the issue. It would require the feds to recognize full civil unions/domestic partner benefits for all couples. Since the federal government doesn't recognize civil unions then heterosexuals would inadvertently have to fight the federal government for their rights as well.

[joebloe]

True....
It would force hetero to face this issue as gays have been.
I know I would be pissed if my marriage benefits and rights were suddenly taken away.

[HHarvey]

or give civil unions the same benefits.

[113]

we should just move away from the state sponsoring "marriage" all together...if the religious want to say marriage is a religious institution then they can keep it and we highlight the seperation between church and state. of course the religious won't go along with this cause they're hypocrites and want everything their way.

[somsoc]

I wish them the best and I will do all I can to support their just cause. Equal rights demands nothing less. To he// with the b ig ots and M or ons.

[hardlyhikin]

You left out the "m"

[somsoc]

No, that is an accurate spelling, J. Smith was illiterate.

[somsoc]

I wish them the best and I will do all I can to support their just cause. Equal rights demands nothing less. To he// with the bigots and Morons.

[truthartbeauty]

I see the precious sacredness of those made in heaven straight marriages everytime I watch divorce court. I cant tell you how impressed I am to be gay and not allowed to be married because I am not moral???enough? then I have to watched the most vulgar illiterate piece of human trash on earth seeking paternity tests for her 6 children, all with different fathers, all in prison......loud, stupid, tasteless, and I am supposed to respect that? I have seen how sacred your precious marriages are. I see how special every time I turn on tv, watch divorce court, or see two old stray dogs in the alley with thier butts stuck together. we are real impressed with you sacred marriage. aren't you special!!!!!!

[MsLiz]

Not exactly representative samples. The characters on those shows are selected for being so wildly dysfunctional that they will entertain viewers.

[howcome]

African America is pretty ticked at the homosexual community hijacking this as a civil rights issue .. It is not.. Marriage is not a right... There are prerequisites as prescribed by law , and they can be decided on by the electorate ( only those of special olympic IQ would compare to race qualifications) A reversal probably will pass as Prop 8 only passed by a little less than what Obama won by

[CitizenRA]

I think there is confusion between marriage as a religious sacrament and marriage as a civil contract. That is why a marriage can be annulled though a church (for those that have this practice), while a divorce is a legal and contractual matter. It is marriage as a civil contract that becomes a human right -- under US law, no mentally competent adult can be prevented from entering into a contract with another adult on the basis of race, religion, or sexual orientation -- with the exception of a marriage contract in the State of California (and many other states, of course). So let's separate the two concepts -- the state controls the legal contract known as civil union, while the churches control marriage (which will confer no legal status). I know this will not satisfy the "Yes on 8" people, or those who want to use the term marriage for both the civil and religious union, but it seems plenty fair and entirely legal to me.

[legalgirl]

With all due respect; in California, a marriage is legally annulled for fraud and a couple of other things, and that's all. The church has nothing to do with it from the standpoint of the court/state. Also, you can be married in a church (without a marriage license) and you're married, as far as the church is concerned, but not the court/state. That takes a marriage license. Once obtained, and the marriage is registered, THEN you are legally married.

[NotesFromME]

Well said. Civil marriage and marriage as a religious sacrament are seperate in most European countries, and in Latin America. Take the right of priests, ministers, rabbis to conduct a legal marriage away, and leave that part to the state registry office. That leaves marriage as a special type of contract between two consenting adults. We really do need a true seperation of church and state on this issue.

[JudgeMoonbox]

"African America is pretty ticked at the homosexual community hijacking this as a civil rights issue "

So how many have explicitly stated that civil rights are for those who can't lie about how they're different from everyone else?? How many have said that if they'd been around 49 years ago, they'd have criticized John F. Kennedy for hijacking civil rights to cover up his choice of religion? If he'd converted to Episcopalianism, he'd have had less trouble getting elected President.

"Marriage is not a right"

Why not? By howcome's standard, free speech is not a right because we can't falsely shout fire in a crowded theater. There are definite reasons to deny the incestuous the right to marry. There may be reasons to ban polygamy. The opponents of gay marriage have had to resort to lies; and even then they could only get 51% of the vote.

[wdw505]

yet still a win

[Hirnlego]

It is a right, and it will be if we choose to make it a right..and we will in the end.

[Bystander]

Use ACORN to make sure you get enough "signatures."

[MicrowavableJohnnyCakes]

Awww... don't fret. I'm sure plenty of out of state religious groups will be willing to violate tax laws to battle this like they did pouring money into California for Prop 8.

[jerryfromcalifornia]

The Mormans claim that this broke them, I can only hope that its true.

[joebloe]

Naw, I think we will use republican idea of throwing people we don't like off the voting rolls.

[boycottrightwingthings]

Also a Republican voting scam used by them in every elelction: throw away votes. they tried that in the last election too, but you can't steal a landslide!! : )

[M1]

Millions will be spent on this stupid non-issue. Equality simply means everyone gets the same thing.

California has a water system incapable of servicing its population, it roads and bridges in need of repair, and the legislature is so desparate to find revenue that it tried to tax Dog and Cat care services.

MARRIAGE EQUALITY OR MILLIONS MORE WILL POUR DOWN THE DRAIN!!!

The outside forces do not care about the condition of our state on a day to day basis. They are willing to destroy our State over this non-issue. I hope Californians wake up and vote for EQUALITY for ALL and send these unholy forces back to their own states.

[Indubio]

I think your comment sums up the situation rather well. At some point, and I hope it happens soon, this state will have to hold a constitutional convention because there are so many problems with the present document I suspect it cannot be repaired. A new constitution would I trust do away with the ballot initiative. This idea may have had merit when the last constitution was approved ,more than half a century ago but is is counterproductive today. Any new document would also have to deal with the matter if taxation. California will never get passed its budget problems as long as government is hampered by the effects of Proposition 13. We might also consider a unicameral legislature to cut down on state operation costs and a strict mandate that all actions before the legislature can never be altered from a simple majority vote. Lots of problems in California. While I opposed Proposition 8, this issue us a distraction from the serious problems facing the state (a new constitution could adress this issue once andfor all).

[beyondliberal]

Since when is marriage a "religion-only" deal? If it was, people wouldn't be allowed to marry at the courthouse as they do in Europe-- or even in the US-- a religious ceremony is optional.
I am incensed that my right to marry the person of my choosing has been taken away. Doesn't anyone remember Plessy v. Ferguson? Apparently those so-called Christians (I don't see Jews opposing same-sex marriage) didn't pay attention in HS American history class.

[SJBrown]

What does Plessy vs. Ferguson have to do with marriage and religion? Explain

[MsLiz]

It's not my issue to explain, but my recollection is that Plessy established that separate but equal met constitutional standards, and put a stop to the equality movement. Of course, nothing was equal after that.