07/29/2008
Gay Marriage Opponents to Sue Over New Wording in Proposition 8
The Secretary of State recently changed the word in the anti-gay ballot measure proposition 8 to accurately reflect the fact that it would actually remove a right from many Californians.
The language was changed from "to provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California" to the more accurate "eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry."
Now, gay marriage foes are suing to have the language changed back to what it was originally:
"Jennifer Kerns, spokeswoman for the Protect Marriage coalition, called the new language 'inherently argumentative' and said it could 'prejudice voters against the initiative.'
It's likely the bigots are scared that the bill might not pass if people don't realize what they're voting for.
"Political analysts on both sides suggest that the language change will make passage of the initiative more difficult, noting that voters might be more reluctant to pass a measure that makes clear it is taking away existing rights."
Opponents of gay marriage say they'll sue over changed wording in Proposition 8 [la times]
Posted 6:40 AM EST by Andy Towle in California, Gay Marriage, News | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
The truth hurts.
Posted by: Daniel | Jul 29, 2008 7:50:44 AM
So Ms Kern the bigot is concerned about prejudice against her initiative. The rewording is the truth and obviously the truth is her enemy. Or maybe better phrase would be that “love is their enemy”.
Posted by: 1♥ | Jul 29, 2008 8:02:02 AM
The bigots know that the old wording is biased in their favor. "Marriage should only be between one man and one woman" is a loaded statement which suggests opening the door to polygamy if a no vote is in the majority, a fact which plays on undecided voters' minds. Thank goodness for the new wording, which more accurately reflects the specifics, and isn't loaded.
Posted by: jason | Jul 29, 2008 8:08:26 AM
Unlike the previous wording--which makes the judgment call for the voter--the revised wording more accurately reflects the draconian effect(s) of the voter's decision on the issue. Because same sex marriage is already constitutionally valid (indeed, required) in California, a vote in favor of the proposed ban would enshrine in the state constitution the stripping away of extant rights from a particular subset of citizens. Rather than "conferring" rights, actually merely enumerating inherent human rights, the proposed ban would deny rights that already exist and have been conferred in the existing state constitution and enumerated in a judicial opinion, to a specified minority.
This would turn the purpose of a consitutional document, which is to delimit the power of government acting on behalf of the majority, on its head. Constitutional government is designed to protect the inherent human rights of minority citizens from the tyranny of the majority. The revised wording is not only more accurate but is brilliant political strategy because it forces the voter to explicitly acknowledge the consequences of his and her vote.
Posted by: rudy | Jul 29, 2008 8:56:00 AM
The court declared it as a right, so therefor it is currently a right.
Posted by: Jon S | Jul 29, 2008 8:56:28 AM
I don't know if anyone has said this in the past but what's up with "Kern" being so anti-gay?
Sally Kern, Jennifer Kerns, Kern County in CA...
Posted by: Nat | Jul 29, 2008 9:08:16 AM
Amen Rudy! This is exactly what it means. Voters will have to recognize that they are specifically discriminating against a group of people that currently have the right to marry. It is a brilliant move and lets hope it works!
Take care Rudy!
Posted by: RB | Jul 29, 2008 9:41:34 AM
This is HUGE and exactly why I only use the term "marriage equality" instead of "gay marriage". Words do matter.
Posted by: John in Manhattan | Jul 29, 2008 9:52:24 AM
The wing-nut bigots will shot their proverbial wad fighting these little skirmishes and will be too drained of energy and resources to focus on the big battle in November.
Posted by: GM | Jul 29, 2008 11:49:42 AM
The CA Secretary of State, Debra Bowen, needs an immediate raise! Well, maybe not but that was such an amazing act!
The election will be very close but this will certainly help us out. It is always harder to remove rights which people already enjoy - and this new language accurately reflects that.
Thanks Debra! And, good luck California!!
Posted by: Kurt from Milwaukee | Jul 29, 2008 12:46:11 PM
The new wording is more accurate, but again, there is no "right" to marriage. The ruling (apparently too nuanced for the general population to understand) is that gays et al fall under strict scrutiny of Equal Protection under California law. The right is to Equal Protection, not marriage. One consequence of the ruling is that if straight people can marry, so can gays et al.
Posted by: anon | Jul 29, 2008 1:11:11 PM
Re the "right" to marriage, quoting from the CA Supreme Court ruling:
"First, we must determine the nature and scope of the “right to marry” — a right that past cases establish as one of the fundamental constitutional rights embodied in the California Constitution."
Sounds like been there done that to me.
Posted by: Kevinvt | Jul 29, 2008 1:37:56 PM
Ah, no, "nature and scope" is qualitative. For example, you can't marry your dog in California. Please show me the clause in the CA constitution that grants a right to marriage. You have a right to go fishing in CA, I'll grant you that. Here is Sec 31a:
SEC. 31. (a) The State shall not discriminate against, or grant
preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of
race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of
public employment, public education, or public contracting.
Here is section 8:
SEC. 8. A person may not be disqualified from entering or pursuing
a business, profession, vocation, or employment because of sex, race,
creed, color, or national or ethnic origin.
The ruling was radical enough under these too sections. However, it was really based more on past marriage rulings than anything in the text. That is, prior courts have established various rights, which were then expanded by this ruling to cover gays and marriage.
Posted by: anon | Jul 29, 2008 3:37:50 PM
Anon, the opinion would seem to be at odds with what you're saying:
"As discussed below, upon review of the numerous California decisions that
have examined the underlying bases and significance of the constitutional right to
marry (and that illuminate why this right has been recognized as one of the basic,
inalienable civil rights guaranteed to an individual by the California Constitution) . . ."
While I agree that applying strict scrutiny is what *enabled* the decision to be made, there seems no question that, according to the court, marriage has, in California, been established previously as a constitutional right. They cite Perez vs Sharp a great deal, specifically the excerpt that marriage is "'a
fundamental right of free men [and women]'" (Perez, supra, 32 Cal.2d 711, 714)."
They address "right" vs right specifically in footnote 41: "It is noteworthy that the California and federal Constitutions are not alone in recognizing that the right to marry is not properly viewed as simply a benefit or privilege that a government may establish or abolish as it sees fit, but rather that the right constitutes a basic civil or human right of all people."
Both this opinion and past cases establish that a formulated right ("mariage") that is a composite of several constitutionally-provided rights itself becomes a constitutional right without having had to be explicitly stated in the constitution. It becomes the sum of its parts.
Posted by: AG | Jul 29, 2008 4:37:32 PM
Jennifer Kerns and the “Yes on 8″ campaign crew invite you to attend their August 14th Open House in Irvine:
Here’s the invite
RSVP Juliet@schubertflintpa.com
I’m wondering if those who’d deny civil rights to others don’t deserve to get their parties crashed?
“Yes on 8″ RSVP? Need your advice.
Posted by: Chino Blanco | Aug 2, 2008 10:04:43 PM