California | Gay Marriage | News

BigGayDeal.com

CA Anti-Gay Groups Relaunch Effort to Ban Same-Sex Marriage

The California Supreme Court recently announced that it would hear arguments related to a long-pending same-sex marriage case on March 4th. This, of course, has lit the fire under the asses of "pro-family" groups who have again set out to get a measure on the ballot that would ban it:

California"The groups, ProtectMarriage.com and VoteYesMarriage.com, have filed ballot language with the California Secretary of State that would, if approved by voters, amend the California Constitution to limit marriage to one man and one woman regardless of how the Supreme Court rules. They have until late April to gather signatures from 694,354 voters to qualify the measures for the November election and have begun circulating petitions, fundraising and recruiting volunteers through Southern California churches."

Efforts to get a similar measure on the ballot in 2005 failed as they weren't able to collect enough signatures, but advocates say they are now better organized and funded.

According to the AP: " By enshrining the two laws that already prevent gays from marrying in the state Constitution, both amendments would overrule the justices if they decide the current statutes are an unconstitutional violation of the civil rights of same-sex couples. The court is expected to issue it's ruling by early June. The VoteYesMarriage initiative would go a step further, however, by prohibiting the state from granting gays the spousal rights and tax benefits of marriage, as it already has by allowing gays to register as domestic partners. If it passed, those rights would be eliminated."

California groups aiming for gay marriage ban amendment [ap]

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. Their timing in the wake of the shooting in Oxnard is beyond reprehensible.

    Posted by: David | Feb 15, 2008 11:32:22 AM


  2. I actually wrote a letter to the editor in my local paper in San Bernardino County about the initiative to tell people to reconsider signing the petition.

    As what Rush Limbaugh states, you got to demonstrate absurdity by being absurd. I said if straight people want to protect marriage they need to eliminate the no-fault divorce and enter into covenant marriages before they decide to restrict marriage and eliminate domestic partnerships.

    Also, see if Know Thy Neighbor can be used in California. It might be a good idea.

    Posted by: Matt from California | Feb 15, 2008 11:52:55 AM


  3. OH HELL NO! Not in my State....i will go later today to my lgbt center and see what ic an do...Hate those pedophile psycho christians!

    Posted by: Bosie | Feb 15, 2008 12:14:16 PM


  4. WTF? I thought we already had laws in this state limiting marriage to "one man and one woman." Are they just upset because it's not in the STATE CONSTITUTION? The unmitigated selfishness of these deranged people astounds me.

    Posted by: oakling | Feb 15, 2008 1:13:11 PM


  5. Let me guess, those people are kkkristians.

    Posted by: JesusChrist | Feb 15, 2008 1:31:10 PM


  6. The VERY definition of "scape goat".

    Sacrifice the innocent and vulnerable to distract from one's own failings.

    Posted by: ZEKE | Feb 15, 2008 2:27:32 PM


  7. I really hope the petition signature information will be posted to knowthyneighbor.com.

    Posted by: Rey | Feb 15, 2008 3:22:56 PM


  8. Nothing says Love Thy Neighbor As Thyself like trying to strip away people's rights even after they've been granted. Ballot amendments are heinous, the people who sign them even more so.

    Posted by: Ernie | Feb 15, 2008 5:11:10 PM


  9. So how do we get the IRS to strip those Southern California Churches of their tax free status as they've become political organizations?

    Posted by: David R. | Feb 15, 2008 5:34:13 PM


  10. Wednesday night, I went to a celebration in San Francisco of the fourth anniversary of the gay and lesbian marriages Mayor Gavin Newsom tried to empower in 2004 which led directly to the constitutional case finally going directly before the California Supreme Court on March 4—or “March Forth!” as one a woman who missed getting married by mere minutes before the marriages were stopped put it.

    [“Sex in the City”/”Brothers & Sisters” hottie Jason Lewis was there. I’m not sayin’....I’m just sayin’.]

    Geof Kors of Equality California spoke of the Right, funded by tens of thousands of dollars from out-of-state groups—are paying people to collect signatures all across California to qualify for the ballot. If you have nongay family or friends in California and think they might sign, this is a time to stand up for yourself and all of us and contact them however you feel best and ask them not to.

    He said that their professional polling shows that the percentage of opponents and supporters is now virtually tied. Far better than it was just a few years ago but too close to feel confidant that any ballot measure would fail in November when millions more are likely to vote due to the Presidential election.

    Kors also said that the research showed that the “moveable middle” doesn’t respond positively to arguments about “rights” but do when they understand that the issue is about gay couples being able to have their love legally recognized and protected just as their own is. Hence, the ad that was created showing a bride running into myriad obstacles on her way to marry her groom. [Yes, I know that some found it too melodramatic or sentimental, but ja didn’t pay for or read the research did ja?]

    If you want to donate to the multifaceted campaign, please go to:

    https://www.kintera.org/site/apps/ka/sd/donor.asp?c=9oINKWMCF&b=2293809&en=efIELMMuHcJEKLPwHiIHIRPzFjIXKXOvGcJGJQMtFgLOLUMDJtE

    A moving documentary about those history-making days in 2004, "Pursuit of Equality-The Unfinished Work of American Freedom," was shown. The first of several times I teared up was when it showed a deaf lesbian couple getting married under the magnificent dome of SF's City Hall Rotunda [the same building in which Harvey Milk and George Moscone were murdered]—a signer translating the vows for them being read by SF's nongay, Asian woman City Clerk [she performed the first—and initially secret—marriage of gay movement icons Phyllis Lyon and Del Martin].

    I'm sending copies of the documentary DVD to the LGBT student center at Indiana University where I used to live, and anyone interested can purchase a copy for themselves or others at http://www.pursuitofequality.com/ . It’s another form of “viral marketing” of the idea of marriage equality. [For the record, I have no connection with it other than the interest of seeing its example witnessed by as many as possible, beyond our own community especially.] See trailer at: http://www.pursuitofequality.com/trailer.html

    Gay CA Assemblyman Mark Leno, who has gotten marriage equality legislation passed twice only to have Arnold deceitfully veto it twice, said that, though his administration [attention Log Heads] filed an amicus brief against us, Arnold’s said he will sign a third bill legalizing it if the Court rules the bans unconstitutional. I'm skeptical they'll do that, but hope that if they do their decision gets delayed beyond the typical 90 days to after the November election.

    Leno also said that whenever any straight married person says civil unions or domestic partnerships are just as good as marriage he wants to ask, “Would you trade yours for mine?”

    It’s a fair question also for a certain Presidential candidate who, unlike his opponent, has gone out of his way to repeatedly insist that we should be satisfied with civil unions.

    Posted by: Michael Bedwell | Feb 15, 2008 5:37:27 PM


  11. I thought the supreme court was put in place to determine the constitutionality(not really sure that's a word) of laws? I'm sure undermining the supreme court of even a state government is the way to get your way.

    Posted by: Garst | Feb 15, 2008 5:42:42 PM


  12. Please Michael, tell us specifically, how is Hillary's position on marriage equality/civil unions different from the one of "a certain Presidential candidate". Such a swipe is misleading, disingenuous and shameful. If you want to be a Hillary supporter by all means do but please don't make bogus claims and insenuations.

    Besides, I've seen MUCH more evidence that Obama sees civil unions as a practical and timely step toward true equality in the future. Hillary has never given me hope that she sees civil unions (the ONLY thing she has ever shown support for) as a step in the journey.

    Besides, Obama is very much influenced by his faith and his (and my) denomination, the United Church of Christ, which supports full marriage equality. If religious concerns about marriage are Obama's issue then his denomination might be very influential in educating him as to how to take a public stand that makes clear the difference between civil and religious marriage.

    Speaking of that, my local (predominantly straight) UCC congregation voted UNANIMOUSLY this past Sunday to stop performing civil marriages in our church and to restrict anyone acting on behalf of our church from performing civil marriages at any location. We REALLY believe in equality and the separation of church and state. Not bad for a church in the backwards, conservative state of Florida.

    Posted by: ZEKE | Feb 15, 2008 6:13:32 PM


  13. Please MICHAEL, tell us specifically, how is Hillary's position on marriage equality/civil unions different from the one of "a certain Presidential candidate". Such a swipe is misleading, disingenuous and shameful. If you want to be a Hillary supporter by all means do but please don't make bogus innuendo and insinuations.

    Besides, I've seen MUCH more evidence that Obama sees civil unions as a practical and timely step toward true equality in the future. Hillary has never given me hope that she sees civil unions (the ONLY thing she has ever shown support for) as a step in the journey.

    Besides, Obama is very much influenced by his faith and his (and my) denomination, the United Church of Christ, which supports full marriage equality. If religious concerns about marriage are Obama's issue then his denomination might be very influential in educating him as to how to take a public stand that makes clear the difference between civil and religious marriage.

    Speaking of that, my local (predominantly straight) UCC congregation voted UNANIMOUSLY this past Sunday to stop performing civil marriages in our church and to restrict anyone acting on behalf of our church from performing civil marriages at any location. We REALLY believe in equality and the separation of church and state. Not bad for a church in the backwards, conservative state of Florida.

    Posted by: ZEKE | Feb 15, 2008 6:17:07 PM


  14. Sorry for the double post. I got a message that said there was a transmission error.

    Is anyone else having trouble posting today?

    Posted by: ZEKE | Feb 15, 2008 6:25:37 PM


  15. This latest move by pigheaded Republican and christian opponents of samesex marriage will make it easier for Billary Clinton, the 'two for the price of one' candidate to garner bigot votes. Billary can point out that they too are pigheaded opponents of samesex marriage with impeccable antigay credentials.

    They’re the same dynamic duo the rammed DOMA through Congress a few year ago and then arrogantly boasted about it campaign commercials. Bill Clinton, after all says 'gay marriage (sic)' is the ‘kiss of death’ for Democrats. And Hillary, echoing another Dixiecrat, George Wallace, says that samesex marriage and civil unions are ‘states rights’ questions.

    That’s why Hillary has so many rightwing Republican christians as admirers, including her Senatorial bible class littermates Santorum of Pennsylvania and Brownback of Kansas, both of whom applaud her views on things like the ‘christian’ view on marriage. So does Pat Robertson, who greatly admires her ‘tacking to the right’ and ditto for Faux News owner Rupert Murdoch gave her a $100,000.00 ‘donation’ for services rendered.

    Barak Obama agrees with Billary and the Republicans that we don’t deserve same sex marriage equality, and if you don’t believe me just ask the good Reverend Donnie McKulkin and other bigots like Mary Mary or Bush’s ‘spirit’ advisor, who recently endorsed Obama.

    This isn't a case of ‘politics make strange bedfellows’. This is a case of like minded porkers crowded around the same slop box, grunting and shouldering each other as they root around for bigot votes.

    Posted by: Bill Perdue, RainbowRED | Feb 15, 2008 6:45:36 PM


  16. Zeke, Michael Bedwell, aka Leland Frances is going to find it difficult to answer your question. The Democratic Party as a whole is against samesex marriage for the same reason that they dropped ENDA and the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Bill. It’s the same reason they passed DADT and DOMA by huge majorities. It the same reason that Barney Frank tore into Frisco Mayor Gavin Newsom for conducting marriages there a couple of years ago.

    What all these thing shave in common is that they’re attempts to deny the Republicans ‘wedge’ issues while condemning us to permanent second class status. They call it incrementalism, but the real name for it bigots pandering to the bigot vote.

    A Republican is a baboon in a people suit with a theocratic christian attached at the thigh. A Democrat is a Republican in drag. Enough already.

    Posted by: Bill Perdue | Feb 15, 2008 7:12:19 PM


  17. Say it ain't so MICHAEL.

    Please tell me that you aren't Leland.

    I've been missing Leland and wondering where he's been. I can't believe he would change his identity and not let me in on it.

    Posted by: ZEKE | Feb 15, 2008 8:03:57 PM


  18. That Obama, who sometimes seems more to be running for Religious Prophet than President, has chosen to go against the official position of his denomination on marriage equality is both curious and foreboding. What other self-styled, cherry-picked moralisms does he have hiding up his sleeves?

    Is my memory faulty about someone returning from the UCC national convention last year confused by Obama having strangely left the church’s ahead-of-its-time pro-gay actions out of his litany of praise for its other social issues leadership? Paging Bill Johnson!

    He has had frequent opportunities to distinguish between “civil” and “religious” “marriage” and, quite to the contrary, has only unnecessarily glued them harder together or, with the arrogance a white patriarchal asshole or any Ayatollah would envy, ceded control of the M-word to those churches that would also CIVILLY deny it to us [emphasis mine]:

    “You want the word marriage and I believe that the issue of marriage has become so entangled - the word marriage has become so entangled with religion - that it makes more sense for me as president, with that authority, to talk about the civil rights that are conferred [with civil unions]."

    He’s even rewriting the dictionary, redefining “full” as in “full equality” to “except for that marriage thingy.” Would you pay $40 for $30 worth of gas? Then why are gays, instead of still praising his post McClurkingate damage control epistle, “A Call for FULL Equality,” not saying, “Stop pissing on our legs and telling us it’s raining”?

    If the son of a mixed race couple who could have once gone to jail for their love doesn’t get it now, when will he? That’s a perspective Hillary can’t be judged by, just as her position is consistent with her United Methodist denomination while his is not. I fear the only way he’s going to be educated about it is through the ballot box, but, sadly, it’s too late for that as the minds of so many gays and gay media have been washed into a stupor by Obamamania.

    I did not say “position,” though it does more or less come to that. What I meant was that, while understanding that “marriage” is a dog that won’t hunt in this election, I don’t understand why Obama keeps feeling the need to say things beyond simply affirming the support for civil unions he shares with Sen. Clinton that taints it for me.

    And I don't get as you suggest that, he "sees civil unions as a practical and timely step toward true equality in the future." To the contrary, I believe he believes they're all we need—and we'll take it and we'll like it, Bitches!

    He repeatedly trumpets, as he did in that essay, “As President, I will use the bully pulpit to urge states to treat same-sex couples with full equality in their family and adoption laws. I personally believe that civil unions represent the best way to secure that equal treatment.” During the LOGO forum he said, “"As I've proposed it, it wouldn't be a lesser thing, from my perspective." AGAIN, that’s HIS definitions of what “full equality” and “best way” and “lesser” are for OUR relationships. Though much of their language is similar, Sen. Clinton hasn’t lectured us in quite that way, shoving back when challenged as he has. “Oh, come on!” “Semantics may be important to some," he said. Damn right, jerk! Class, can you say, “patronizing”?

    And the flip side of that has been playing us stupid about the superior praise he keeps asking for—and shamelessly getting—re repealing Section 2 of DOMA, hiding his real position, while Sen. Clinton has simply been honest about the state’s rights relationship to marriage laws and gets crucified for it.

    The real Obama position was revealed, however on August 11, 2007, on ABC News online, emphasis mine: “OBAMA BELIEVES STATES SHOULD BE UNDER NO OBLIGATION TO RECOGNIZE SAME-SEX MARRIAGES FROM OTHER STATES. He wants to fully repeal DOMA, however, because he views the statute as ‘ineffectual and redundant’, in the words of [Obama supporter and his former Constitutional law professor Lawrence] Tribe.

    OBAMA BELIEVES A LONG-RECOGNIZED PUBLIC POLICY EXCEPTION TO THE CONSTITUTION’S FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE EXEMPTS A STATE FROM HAVING TO RECOGNIZE A SAME-SEX MARRIAGE FROM ANOTHER STATE WHICH RUNS COUNTER TO ITS OWN PUBLIC POLICIES.

    ‘MARRIAGE IS NOT SOMETHING THAT STATES HAVE EVER BEEN OBLIGED TO RECOGNIZE IF IT’S BEEN AGAINST THEIR OWN PUBLIC POLICY’, said Tribe, who has testified on the subject before Congress.

    ‘SAME-SEX COUPLES [FOR INSTANCE] IN MASSACHUSETTS ARE NEITHER BETTER NOR WORSE OFF WITH DOMA REPEALED except that the repeal of DOMA is a way of telling that couple that their marriage in Massachusetts is not going to be made the subject of a symbolic and ineffectual slam by the federal government’.”

    Repeat: “NEITHER BETTER NOR WORSE OFF WITH DOMA REPEALED.”

    Apparently having revealed too much, Tribe was rushed back to the Obama Borg hive, and the full truth escaped the radar of lazy gay media who are allowing false assertions of Obama’s different position about the core issue [states’ rights] to be repeated unchallenged to this very day. See current “Washington Blade” guest editorial from three Fags for Obama, one of whom, Eric Stern, I know knows the truth because we fought over its implications during an exchange on Bilerico.com two weeks ago. Has the Obama campaign NO integrity?

    BILERICO EXCHANGE:
    http://www.bilerico.com/2008/02/clinton_key_in_lgbt_massachusetts_win.php

    TRIBE SOURCE: http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3468949&page=1

    And while mainstream media probably is indifferent to, let alone aware of, his bald-faced lie to “The Advocate” in October about cosponsoring and passing the gay rights bill in Illinois when he did neither, they’ve finally begun reporting on a similar one he’s told about passing Illinois legislation regulating the nuclear industry:

    “He has boasted of it on the campaign trail, telling a crowd in Iowa in December that it was ‘the only nuclear legislation that I've passed. I just did that last year’, he said, to murmurs of approval. ... But, contrary to Mr. Obama’s comments in Iowa, it ultimately died amid parliamentary wrangling in the full Senate.” – NY Times, 2/3/08]

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/03/us/politics/03exelon.html?_r=2&hp=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=2&adxnnlx=1203129690-RHJBosNJsQNAuqepWmsY9A

    Sen. Clinton has cosponsored every gay-related bill that he has. But if he so cavalierly lies about what he hasn’t done, why should we believe him about anything he says he will do?

    Posted by: Michael Bedwell | Feb 15, 2008 9:55:41 PM


Post a comment







Trending


« «Jimmy Kimmel: I'm Gay« «