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

[tokenconservative]

I'm sick of this. Someone should just definitively make it one way or another, so we don't have to sit on the edge of our seats waiting every two years.

[sdskelton03]

I am against gay marriage, but I am glad to see this.

This is what you do in a democracy when your side loses. You don't go running to a judge. You don't interrupt church services and threaten old people.

You get out there and try to win the battle of ideas.

[M1]

Your comment flies in the face of our country's history. Civil rights were pushed forward in large part due to the use of the Federal Court system. It boggles my mind how so many people against gay marriage seem so uneducated...and, frankly, stupid.

[joebloe]

The whole idea of Supreme Courts is redress illegal laws and actions. Just because someone gets a law passed does not make that law constitutional. What if someone passed a law that said people who are against gay marriage are not allowed to vote?

To say one person may do something when another can't is discrimination!
Plain & simple!

[ignoranceequalsfear]

The number of people who do not understand what the judicial system's role in the legislative process in our country is staggering.

If somone (conservative) dissagrees with a judge's decision, then it "judicial activism."

I g n o r a n c e is epidemic in our society. Hence the fear of people who are different, i.e homophobia.

[LauraD]

Civil rights are not decidable by vote.

If you actually give a damn about our democracy, then why would you support something so unconsitutional as allowing the majority to determine the freedom and equality of the minority, which is absolutely against the very essence of our constitution?

[PhilipB]

Thanks, LauraD

[fdavidm]

Bravo. The sooner Prop 8 is overturned the better. How dare the people of California think they have a right to limit the rights of fellow citizens because of their sexual orientation. How about an initiative to disallow Californians from practicing Mormonism?

[M1]

How about banning straight people from getting married?

[tomasedison]

BAN married people from getting divorced - let's really protect marriage

[DeniseD]

How about making all Mormons live in Utah? Then we can construct a big wall around the state and not let anyone out or in.

[marxmarv]

But would they make repeated mililtary incursions into Colorado, only to be beaten back by well-armed rebels?

[NotesFromME]

Mormons were only a small part of the opposition to gay marriage. How about rounding up all the folks in black churches? Evangelicals? Catholics? There are far more of them.

So your answer to someone holding to a long-held definition of marriage should be rounded up and imprisoned? Ridiculous.

[KarenT]

Sign the petition if you live in CA. I don't but sent this to everyone I know there:

http://www.yesonequality.com/petition.html

[seenitall]

Thanks, I signed it. I think the bible-thumpers will be surprised this time. It passed by such a small margin and was definitely misleading in how it was presented to the voters. That mealy-mouthed Ken Starr had a tough time explaining to the CA supreme court why the wording was intentionally misleading.

[rssrai]

The state makes money off of all licenses. I agree, why does the state or federal government get to control who gets married. You should be able to just file a paper after you get married and the same with divorce. It is just a money game for everyone to get rich off of.

[JakeMontero]

I don't get the comparison of racism with gay marriage. Frankly, I think a lot of folks support gay marriage but get tired of 'the over the top' comparisons

[buckbuck11]

Let me spell it out for you.

Marriage = a civil right
Denial of marriage rights to one group of people = discrimination
civil rights = civil rights
discrimination = discrimination

You don't decide matters of civil rights by popular vote.
You don't grant civil rights "on a state by state basis."
Otherwise, we'd still have slavery in some states.

[howcome]

you need a new dictionary bucky.... marriage , like driving a car, is not a civil right.... African America is pretty pissed at having this hijacked... There are certain prerequisites for marriage... And the state of California has decreed one man and one woman... Now it can be changed and should be .

[fdavidm]

You don't get it? It about not allowing gays to have the same rights as heterosexuals, just like it was once okay to deny blacks the same rights that whites enjoyed.

[SJBrown]

Excuse me. Name one law that would send a "gay" person to jail for being married. Name one law that would send a "gay" person to jail for sitting in a public place. Name one law that would deny a "gay" person from attending a state funded school or university. Point to the words in any law in U.S. that describe or define "gay" people as a group and deny rights to that group. Point to the "heterosexual rights" you refer to in law. How do you identify a "gay" person in law?

[Miketou]

Jake, you are probably white. That's why don't get the comparison. I'm not white and I do get the comparison.

[SJBrown]

I'm Black and I don't get it either. Explain it for us.

[leonel]

These guys are figuring it out. The ultimate answer is for governments around the world not give out marriage licenses and not determine who is or is not married. This has got to be the easiest way to stop discrimination and is likely the way that it could be done legally world wide, especially in very traditional societies.

[Tim303]

Hooray!

[noamjunior]

I have been keeping up with anti- prop 8 groups and the key to victory for any pro- gay amendment will be to keep track fo religous groups from out of state spending money to influence the election. The mormons have been shown to have been illegally funding prop- 8 initiatives. This time the equal rights groups are much more on top of the illegal funding efforts of the mormons and other pro-h8 groups

[PlaceboStudman]

Someone needs to get the secular groups in California like the ACLU, and the Atheist, Secular Humanist and Pantheist organizations on board to make sure that they have some financial and political influence to balance out any potential influence from the religious groups

[JakeHanson]

You are right. There are many grassroots initiatives as we speak that are already making headway; one of the biggest ones is the Courage Campaign which has created thousands of dollars through donations. The ACLU is matching donations made up to $10,000 for the next few months, too.

[carsntrucks]

Where did they find that the Mormons were illegally funding Prop 8 initiatives?

[JakeHanson]

It's illegal if you claim tax-exempt status when a Church channels millions into a State initiative (Separation of Church and State):

"Californians Against Hate released figures showing that $17.67 million was contributed by 59,000 Mormon families since August to groups like Yes on 8. Contributions in support of Prop. 8 total $22.88 million. Additionally, the group reports that Mormons have contributed $6.9 million to pass a a similar law, Proposition 102, in Arizona.

Karger said Californians Against Hate came up with the figures by cross-referencing donor information from the California secretary of state with Brigham Young University alumni lists, church memberships, and other personal documentation that could identify Mormon Church members. He said the surge in support has been an attempt to boost the church's social standing among the greater religious community.

"For whatever reason, they're trying to get some respect from other religions," he told The Advocate Tuesday. "They've always been looked down upon by the Christians, the Catholics, and evangelicals." Success with the marriage amendment would give the church credibility, Karger said."

[Countdown09]

it's not a wonder CA is broke, that state is forever spending money on voting. For Christs sakes sooner than later gay citizens in this country will have the same rights (as they deserve) as all American's so why keep spending money and resources to prolong the inevitable. Why is it in a country where it is in our constitution that "all men are created equal" we are forever fighting against allowing equal rights to all citizens.

[JohnFromCensornati]

How can you put a price on ensuring a gay-marriage-free world for the day that Je$u$ returns?

[fdavidm]

Like the 12th of NEVER!

[seenitall]

that's going to be a very long wait...I mean the Jesus thing. Keep believing what you believe. I believe we will see equality for gays sooner than when Jesus gets here. He would approve, by the way.

[buckbuck11]

You're right....and they vote on these initiatives that bind the hands of their legislatures to cut spending in certain pet areas or not to raise taxes to pay for it unless you have some outrageous super majority.

The ballot proposition has ruined California's education system and continues to wreak havoc on its ability to maintain solvency.

[JakeHanson]

Exactly. If the millions that were spent on fighting prop h8 was actually used towards something beneficial and progressive, we may have a few more students who actually have a better funded education, or more programs in place for the impoverished who are suffering. It's too bad that Obama had to funnell these funds into the state through a stimulus package before we Californians had the chance to make effective use of funds driven by a religious (and tax-free)-motivated agenda.

I love it how supporters of prop 8 feel the need to "defend" traditional marriage and "protect the children". Where is the sanctity in a 50% divorce rate? Or how about cheating while married? Or what about the parents who have kids and then leave them for drugs and alcohol? That happened to me, growing up in a straight house-hold as a kid, and there was nothing "traditional" about it. If hypocrites actually lived up to their beliefs they would be outside the court houses stopping and harassing and dictating the rights of every person who files for divorce.

If marriage were a perfect union I wouldn't be saying anything, but it is not, nor is the concept "owned" by anyone or any religion. The values presented in marriage these days are completely skewed, and by no fault of gay people.

[Coinyer101]

them talibangelicals from utah wont be happy 'bout this.

[kristycu]

i agree. now they have no pull really because they are not residents in that state they can't stop it and. if you look at how many people voted in CA, i don't think they will have a problem getting those signatures. like i said below. i don't think it is right to dictate ones beliefs to others. If Jesus himself did not force his beliefs on others, why do we feel that we are supposed to. Jesus spoke to those who would not listen and to those who wanted to. he told you what he needed to but it was and is still your CHOICE - on whether or not you want to follow. and i said it once and i will say it again. if GOD Himself gave us free will, who are we MAN to take it away. last time i checked we were not the almighty

[JohnFromCensornati]

"last time i checked we were not the almighty"

Last time I checked, the almighty seemed more invisible than almighty.

[carsntrucks]

Last time I checked the constitution said WE the People. So, we kind of are...in the constitutional sense. In the omniscient, moral sense? Of course not.

[JohnFromCensornati]

Somebody will have to have a revelation.

[fdavidm]

You need one because you're clueless.

[YellowDogInRedCounty]

All the more reason to go for it.

[M1]

I like that...Talibangelicals....I will add that to my personal dictionary. Haaa Haa haaa

[Michael Valentine]

Where do I sign?

[SimonOne]

I suggested to my (African-American) girlfriend that we start a petition for a proposition banning interracial marriage - just to show how ridiculous Prop 8 is...

Removing existing rights can never be considered legal. It just makes no sense whatsoever.

[kristycu]

i agree. me personaly. to tell you the truth i don't really know where i stand on gay people getting married, but one thing i do know it should not be something added to a constitution. i live in arizona and they had something like - i voted no on making it illegal under our constitution. i think that is just wrong no matter what your feeling are about homosexual individuals. I have no right to tell people how they live their lives, i will admit that sometimes i may feel uncomfortable, but if it is a person with whom i know, that part of their life seems unimportant. and to tell you the truth of those people throughout my life with whom i worked with or went to school with that are gay. if i really want to be honest about it, i never really think about their sexuality. which i think is the point. any way. i think you make a great point i'm an african American and my boyfriend is not. and at one point in our history that was illegal to me this is the same thing-illegal- it is one thing to say i don't want to allow gay people in my state to get married and another making a law apart of the constitution where by making it harder to change later once may becom enlightened

[JohnFromCensornati]

Yes, that's it. One should mind one's own business.

[TommyObama]

Thanks, Kristy -- Arizona gay people like myself just might be counting on your vote again real soon. We're Cali's Backyard in just about every way, you know.

[SJBrown]

I don't think anyone would take that petition seriously and it would a different argument. Why not start a petition to ban heterosexuals from marrying? The would be closer to making your point.

[Eurovision]

What is the justification for limiting domestic partnerships to couples? Why are plural relationships being discriminated against?

[hortonhearsawho2]

they take breaks from bea.ting their wives, just long enough to, well...u get it, right.

[JohnFromCensornati]

Have as many spouses as you please.

[DeniseD]

Yes, as long as they aren't on the government dole. Many of those FLDS wives and children get government handouts.

[YellowDogInRedCounty]

When somewhere in the neighborhood of 10 per cent of all people are born with a genetic attraction to two or more other individuals, then we'll talk.

[StopCensoringMe]

Oh, I see you have a threshhold test for what kind of minorities deserve protections and considerations from the tyranny of the majority. Thanks for the showing your true colors. There are "normal" folks in our society who do have successful plural relationships (versus anybody's fundy mormon examples). Don't these folks also deserve protection...heck, I'll even go so far as to say the Fundy Mormons deserve this protection, if everything is consensual . But, really, the "correct" answer to all of this is to allow any combination of people to create domestic partnerships under the law just as they would form a corporation. If I remember correctly our Constitution provides freedom of (and from) religion. Marriage is a purely religious concept that has crept into our social fabric in the same insidious way the pledge was changed to include "under Gawd" and the money bears the debatable "In Gawd We Trust.". Government has no business in the "Marriage" business. Much less preserving it's "sanctity."

[LauraD]

EVERYONE is attracted to more than one individual. It's whether we choose to act on it that's in our control, not whether we are attracted.

So, it seems that somewhere around 100% of people are born with a genetic attraction to two or more other individuals.

OBTW, I'm married to one man, and am his only wife, and as long as I'm around will continue to be his ONE and ONLY, but I am also of the opinion that if adults want to live in polygamy, that's not my business...but all this mess with the underage kids is not cool. Adults only, guys.

[kindGSL]

Well now you get into the sticky business of contract law.

I figured out why construction projects ruin so many good marriages (a lack of equal protection under the law, BTW), it is because marriage is a contract between two people. Bringing a third party into it (in the form of a building contractor) wreaks havoc in the relationship.

So to answer your question, it is about the sanctity of the contract.

[DeniseD]

Would it be OK for a woman to have multiple husbands under this law?

[wijg]

Yes! on Equality

http://www.yesonequality.com/