Secretary Bowen Qualifies Initiative to Define Marriage in California
Posted by: Jaime Huff | 06/03/2008 9:54 AM
Regardless of your individual views on the issue of gay marriage, the California Supreme Court widely overstepped their constitutional grant of authority in substituting their will for the will of the people. In an effort to correct this naked act of judicial legislation, and prevent it from happening again with respect to this issue, California Family Council has fought back with an initiative that will define marriage in California once and for all as between a man and a woman.
Below are details from the Christian Newswire:
Below are details from the Christian Newswire:
California Marriage Amendment Qualifies for November Ballot - The People Will Decide
SACRAMENTO, June 2 /Christian Newswire/ -- Secretary of State Debra Bowen today certified the eighth initiative for the November 4, 2008, General Election ballot. The measure would amend California's Constitution to define marriage as a union "between a man and a woman."
"The response from the people of this state has been unprecedented in support of marriage's legacy, by responding with an all-out volunteer signature campaign," said Ron Prentice, CEO of the California Family Council and Chairman of the ProtectMarriage.com coalition sponsoring the amendment. "We're so grateful to the over 1.1 million voters who signed the marriage petition in time for the November election. Passing this amendment is the only way for the people to override the four supreme court judges who want to re-define marriage for our entire society."
In order to qualify for the ballot, the marriage definition measure needed 694,354 valid petition signatures, which is equal to 8% of the total votes cast for governor in the November 2006 General Election. The initiative proponents submitted 1,120,801 signatures in an attempt to qualify the measure, and it qualified through the random sample signature check.
"The vast majority of research continues to state that California's voters favor keeping marriage as it is, protecting its historic definition between only a man and a woman. The November ballot will give opportunity for citizens to respond to the State Supreme Court's decision, by solidifying traditional marriage in the California Constitution. Californians are a tolerant people. But we also know that marriage is between a man and a woman, as the voters reaffirmed just a few years ago." stated Prentice. California Family Council (CFC) is a family policy council with offices in Sacramento and Riverside. Ron Prentice, CEO chairs the ProtectMarriage.com coalition. Phone: 951.354.8362.
CATEGORY:
FEATURE
Most say gay marriage private choice
By Cathy Lynn Grossman, USA TODAY
Six in 10 Americans say the government should not regulate whether gays and lesbians can marry the people they choose, a survey finds.
As same-sex couples line up to get marriage licenses in California on June 17, the USA TODAY/Gallup Poll found that 63% of adults say same-sex marriage is "strictly a private decision" between two people.
That the government has the right "to prohibit or allow" such marriages was stated by 33%, and 4% had no opinion.
COURTS: California won't stay decision to legalize gay marriage
QUESTION OF THE WEEK: Does it matter to you whom your neighbor marries?
On Monday, the California secretary of state said an initiative to amend the state Constitution to define marriage as a union "between a man and a woman" will be on the ballot Nov. 4. If it passes, it would overturn a state Supreme Court ruling in May that legalized same-sex marriage. After Massachusetts legalized same-sex marriage in 2004, 11 states voted on similar questions.
"Those initiatives … did have an impact in election results," says Mark Rozell, professor of public policy at George Mason University in Fairfax, Va. "Turnout was 2.4% higher on average in those 11 states than the other 39 states."
But these poll findings "suggest caution" to conservative activists who think this will mobilize voters, he says. "People were warned, with lots of overheated rhetoric, about the consequences of gay marriage in Massachusetts. They didn't see it affect their own lives. Now, most people have let loose a collective yawn about the issue."
Poll findings:
A majority of respondents at every level of education and income say same-sex marriage is "strictly private." This was true:
• In every region: East (71%), West (64%), Midwest (63%) and South (56%).
• Among all ages except "65 and older": 18 to 29 (79%), 30 to 49 (65%), 50 to 64% (62%) and 65 and older (44%).
• Among people who also say they have a favorable view of any of the three leading presidential candidates. For those holding favorable views for John McCain, 55% say marriage is a private decision; for Barack Obama, 75% say so; and for Hillary Clinton, 69% do. All three oppose same-sex marriage. Both Democrats both favor civil unions.
• Among people who say a relative, friend or co-worker personally has told them he or she was gay or lesbian (73%).
The strongest support for government regulation of same-sex marriage came from people who say they:
• Attend religious services weekly (56%).
• Are Republicans (56%).
• Are politically conservative (54%).
"After Massachusetts, the public has seen that the decision there has not affected people's lives as much as was feared," Rozell says.
Still, there are forms of marriage Americans overwhelmingly do want to see regulated: 66% say polygamy should not be a strictly private decision; 78% say the government should regulate marriages involving someone under 16.
Every state but one, New Hampshire, requires parental permission to marry someone under 18, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. New Hampshire sets the age at 17. Mississippi sets it at 21.
If you, and others who share your belief, really believed that gay marriage was an individual choice and that no government intervention was needed - then why the court case? Why oppose initiatives like the one posted above? Just go off and find someone "Internet Ordained" to marry you and your partner and be done with it. The point is you don't want it to be a private affair; you want to fight it in the courts because you want the state to give gay marriage legitimacy. Sorry, government doesn't have that kind of power.
Actually, all we want are the same rights, responsibilities, and benefits you enjoy, and which WE are currently subsidizing but not enjoying.
Rights don't come from government, my friend.
That would not be the American experience over the past 232 years.
Government enforces unalienable rights that are already endowed to us by our Creator; they do not 'invent' new ones. The American Experience has been the protection of God granted rights, and at times force against those who try to deny rights. But never has the government granted new ones.
"But never has the government granted new ones."
That certainly flies in the face of generations of conservative dogma that the courts and legislators are always finding and granting this or that group special rights or rights not enumerated by the Constitution.
You hit the nail on the head - that is why conservatives don't like it when courts grant "new" rights. Although the "penumbras" of the Constitution does cover a multitude of sins.
"The right to marry whoever one wishes is an elementary human right compared to which ‘the right to attend an integrated school, the right to sit where one pleases on a bus, the right to go into any hotel or recreation area or place of amusement, regardless of one’s skin or color or race’ are minor indeed. Even political rights, like the right to vote, and nearly all other rights enumerated in the Constitution, are secondary to the inalienable human rights to 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence; and to this category the right to home and marriage unquestionably belongs."
That's Hannah Arendt in Dissent in 1959.
So you can marry a 5 year old? How about a goat?
Comparing the sanctioned breakdown of the nuclear family with the discrimination and fight minorities in this country went through is like comparing World War II to an LA gang fight. No comparison.
Gay rights advocates seek to stop marriage measure
AP via Yahoo! News - Jun 20 8:58 PM
Gay rights advocates asked California 's highest court Friday to keep off the November ballot a citizens' initiative that would again ban same-sex marriage.
· 2.
Advocates seek to stop Calif. gay marriage measure
AP via Yahoo! News - Jun 20 5:46 PM
Gay rights advocates are asking California 's highest court to keep a measure that would again ban same-sex marriage off the November ballot.
· 3.
Groups seek to block gay-marriage initiative
San Jose Mercury News - Jun 21 1:49 AM
Civil rights organizations Friday asked the California Supreme Court to block a November ballot initiative that would restore the state's ban on gay marriage, arguing that it was not drafted properly.
· 4.
Gay rights advocates seek to stop marriage measure
Los Angeles Daily News - Jun 20 7:59 PM
SAN FRANCISCO -- Gay rights advocates asked California 's highest court Friday to keep a citizens' initiative that would again ban same-sex marriage off the November ballot.
· 5.
Gay marriage backers want ban issue off ballot
San Francisco Chronicle - Jun 20 1:16 PM
Gay-rights advocates asked the California Supreme Court on Friday to remove a proposed state constitutional ban on same-sex marriage from the November ballot, saying it would destroy fundamental rights that cannot be legally altered by a voter initiative. The...
· 6.
Civil rights groups seek to block California gay marriage ballot initiative
San Jose Mercury News - Jun 20 5:16 PM
Civil rights organizations today asked the California Supreme Court to block a November ballot initiative that would restore the state's ban on gay marriage, arguing that it was not drafted properly.