I AM WARNING EVERYONE IN ADVANCE, PERSONAL ATTACKS WILL BE DELETED AND RESULT IN BANNING.

MIGHTY THOR

WOW, I am shocked.... Dosen't he have anything else to comment on?
The Jr. camp throws us a tid bit every couple of weeks and this is the best they have. BORRRRRRRING.

THREE of the four justices who authored the majority opinion were REPUBLICAN APPOINTEES. Two by Pete Wilson, one by DUKE. This one is squarely in the Republican's Court. "One finger pointing outward, three pointing back."

We are thankful for Duncan Hunter Jr. and his strong stand for our families. Too bad, Schwarznegger doesn't feel the same way or have the same kind of courage to stand up for supporting the institution of marriage the way that our next congressman in the 52nd is already doing.

Since Mr. Hunter won't have the opportunity to vote on same sex marriage, his opinion on the matter is irrelevant....unless he's trying to send a message to his gay and lesbian voters not to vote for him.

How is Schwarzenegger supposed to overrule the Supreme Court? He can talk all he wants about how much he dislikes it, but the constitution is what it is. The job of the Supreme Court is to make sure that all citizens of our wonderful state are protected the constitution. So I can only assume that you are asking the Governor to ignore the constitution and allow discrimination. Is that what Hunter Jr plans to do?

Issues like this will tell us who will best represent East County. Lumpkin would never be willing to support what close to 75% believe. East County will not support a pro-choice, pro-gay marriage Democrat. Race over in June.

Can we please get back to the real issues? What about the failing economy? What about health care? What about the War??? We have people starving because they lost their jobs... or even worse they work full time and still can't afford to care for their families. People who need health care but are "un-insurable" because of their medical history! We have lost thousands, THOUSANDS of men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan; and the ones who come home have substandard care for their wounded bodies and minds.

These are the issues that need to be discussed.

"Howdy"

As I sit at my workstation typing out a response here. Where I must clock in and clock out take a minimum 30 miniute lunch because of california law, which is unique only to California. I cannot skip lunch if I have a full plate of paper work, and then leave early on Friday to avoid mega traffic on the freeway. I cannot work a couple hours more one day to compensate for a doctors appointment without costing the company overtime or myself vacation time.
While in other states there is "flexi-time" which allows employers and employees to adjust their schedule to more suitable working conditions. It is this obsolete union imposed ridgidity that affects all California white collar workers who work in office buildings. Allowing for more flexibility in hourly work will improve business give one more reason for businesses to stay in California, which will improve the economy that you are so concerned about.

How about that for an issue that needs to be discussed.

If you don't think that the defense of tradtional marriage is one of several issues (including those you cite) important to many people, no one will convince you. Where does Mr. Lumpkin -- the supposed savior of the 52nd -- stand on gay marriage?

If you want to know about Mike Lumpkin's position on many issues, please go to:
http://www.lumpkinforcongress.com/.

>>A marriage license is a states’ rights issue. Mike will not support a Constitutional Amendment to prevent same sex marriage. The forum for deciding social norms and mores is properly kept within the sovereignty of individual states. We must respect that what’s right for Massachusetts might not be what’s right for Texas.

snort, what state is he running in?

Irregardless of your views on this controversial topic. When this issue gets revisited on the ballot this November. It should be noted that this decision is nothing more than legislating from the bench.

I'd like to know the views of any originalist minded attorneys who read this blogs, on this decission.

whats going to be on the ballot is an amendment to California's constitution, not a federal amendment. California constitution is hardly the historic foundation you're implying.

"anonymous"

valid point.

As you write: "Can we please get back to the real issues? What about the failing economy? What about health care? What about the War??? We have people starving because they lost their jobs... or even worse they work full time and still can't afford to care for their families."

Don't you get it? By tearing down the institution of marriage, and the denigrating of what the meanings are of mom and dad, and husband and wife, as well the historical role of strong marriages as the cornerstone of a strong society, you are laying the groundwork for the complete disintegration of our nation. Do you not follow what has happened to our society in the past forty years? The radicalized leftist agenda in this nation, which has pursued the promotion of abortion, pornography, homosexuality, taking prayer out our schools, tearing down our religious symbols, mocking our military and the deluting of the institution of marriage, has all resulted in a growing societal anarchy in America. This anarchy, coupled with the self-indulgent corporate greed of our political parties, has resulted in a catastropic collapse in the relationship between the people and their government, a divorcement of our political leaders from the constitution, and a litany of elected officials who have been caught with prostitutes, divorces, homosexual encounters in public restrooms, and congressman propositioning teenage male pages. There is an absolute correlation between the time that California began to embrace and promote the gay agenda and the economic mismanagement of our governors, the legislature and our own San Diego City Council. You cannot have both immorality and good government co-existing. You must choose one or the other. What is your highest priority? Is it a good government or the destruction of marriage? There is a day of reckoning coming quickly.....whether you want to accept it or not. It is coming.

When I vote in June and November, it will be for someone who respects the rights of ALL those in the district. That rules out Hunter and Jones. Race over in June.

Unfortunately, your reasoning on why we need to get back to the “real issues” about our failing economy, the war, etc. is faulty. We need to get back to the “real issues” because they are the REAL ISSUES, i.e. deficit spending, healthcare, the mortgage meltdown, etc. These are federal issues to be tended to for a federal election in the 52nd District.

This isn't a personal attack. It's an attack on your agenda..which is destroying American values. Forcing your lopsided sense of morality on everyone else infringes on my civil liberties, James Hartline. Just because people live their lives differently from yours, doesn't make them evil or corrupt. Your fascism "draped in a flag and carrying a bible" is a threat to the liberty of Americans, both right and left. The anarchy you talk about is in your mind and pulpit only.

Values and deeds that come from the heart and from true righteousness are real. Yours comes from a diety...what you've been told by some devine being. If Jesus instructed you to murder every sinner you come across, you'd do it. Not because it is right (which of course it is not), but because you were instructed to do so. Rationalists are not so weak-minded.

If you are so swayed by what some people wrote in a book thousands of years ago, and live your life according to their rules, that is your choice and I would be proud to defend it. But your rights stop where mine begin, James Heartline. Keep your religion out of my government!

“Americans understand the urgency of working together; our deficit is spiraling out of control, we are outsourcing jobs, military families face extended deployments, the border is not secure, and Social Security is in trouble. Americans are smart, patriotic folks and we want our country back. We have too much at stake to let perennial wedge agendas hijack our national discussion," said Lumpkin. “Same-sex marriage is a states' rights issue and today's decision is not surprising given California's constitution. If the decision is contrary to the will of the majority then Californian's must change our state's constitution."

Please tell me ONE politician that represents the rights of ALL the people in their district?

The word you are ignoring in your own sentence is "rights." True, it is impossible for politicians to represent the interests or views of all constituents, but they better represent the rights of all or they are negligent in their duty. You know, much like Duncan Hunter Sr. has pretty much ignored most of the 52nd for the last 28 years.

So little duncan thinks the families of California are under assualt by the state's judges. You've got to be kidding me! What is assualting the families of California is the ungodly price of gas, which only makes the Bushies richer. They are the ones who are assualting the families of California. Another assualt on the families of California is the ever-decreasing budget for our schools. Laying off school employees sure doesn't help the families of California ensure their children get a decent education. Let's work on things that actually matter and affect our lives. People loving each other and making a commitment to one another isn't huring anyone eles' marriage or family.

Take a look at this:

http://lumpkinforcongress.com/navy-seal-rejects-gay-marriage-politics-as-usual.html

...and activist judges? Jr. took that right out of the Brian Jones playbook. As Lumpkin said in his press release this morning, 3 out of the 4 supreme court judges voting in favor of same sex marriage were appointed by Republican Governors. The truth is that the conservaive fundamentalists love this issue. They use it as fuel to activate the far right. That's what is chasing moderate Republicans from the party.

I have nothing to do, its Friday. I can't go home. So I compain about stuff on blogs on company time. When I finally get to clock out after spending a few hours goofing off. When I'd rather leave now and work more productivly next week, insted of sitting in traffic. "Flexi-time" for white collar workers, is an important issue to us Californians.

Hey lefties wrap your head arround that one.

Lumpkin just made sure he will lose in November.

Developing a good work ethic isn't a left of right issue either. It's okay to not like your job, but it's not fair to employers (or coworkers for that matter) to "quit and stay." Hard-working, patiotic Americans can wrap their heads around that.

Dodger Girl says: "Another assualt on the families of California is the ever-decreasing budget for our schools."

That's an interesting point, DG. It's also a complete fabrication.

Let's have a look at total K-12 spending over the last few years (and for fun, we'll throw in the enrollment numbers, too)...

2004-05
Budget (in thousands) = $59,864
Enrollment = 5,983,774

2005-06
Budget = $63,455
Enrollment = 5,965,701

2006-07
Budget = $67,135
Enrollment = 5,951,993

2007-08
Budget = $70,687
Enrollment = 5,922,913

So, with enrollment declining (every single year) by over 60,000 students during that period, and the education budget increasing (every single year) by a total of $11 million, I fail to see where we have an "ever-decreasing budget for our schools."

But hey, keep regurgitating your liberal talking points with no supporting facts whatsoever. If nothing else, you'll provide some good laughs.

"Gareth"

I think your budget numbers should have been in millions, not thousands and your budget increase was $11 billion, not $11 million. Otherwise we are only spending $10-12 per student. If true, that would the most efficent use of money this state has ever seen.

Gee, Gareth, I didn't check your figures, but I'll take you at your word---my bad. But please, I'd really like to know how these judges are "assaulting" families.

I'm giving you another issue other than immigration and gay marriage that republicans can run with this cycle. Its fresh that would improve the lives of many white collar workers. If you don't want to use it, fine its your elections to loose.

"Bored"

"Loose" is the opposite of tight.
"Lose" is the opposite of win.

Is there any surprise that Republicans are losing their majority in this County.

Touche, Not a Math Major...I'm no math major either.

But the fact remains -- education spending is going up while student enrollment is going down.

Can same-sex couples marry in California?

Yes. On May 15, 2008, the California Supreme Court ruled that barring same-sex couples from marriage is unconstitutional. Beginning as soon as June 16, same-sex couples will be able to marry in California.

Can the court’s decision be appealed?

No. The California Supreme Court has the final say in cases brought under the California Constitution, like this case, and there can be no more appeals.

Does the court’s decision affect the rights of heterosexual couples?

No. The rights of heterosexual couples to marry and the rights and responsibilities of those who are married remain exactly the same. The decision simply ensures equality and fairness for same-sex couples.

Does this ruling require religious groups or clergy members to marry same-sex couples?

No. The court’s decision said the government may not discriminate against same-sex couples by barring them from civil marriage – a legal institution established and regulated by the government. Religious groups and clergy members remain free to recognize or refuse to recognize marriages within their religion as each sees fit. While some faiths do not permit same-sex couples to marry within that faith, a growing number do. As a result of the court’s decisions, same-sex couples may choose to be married by a clergy person in a welcoming community of faith or by a civil servant such as a judge or authorized deputy.

Should we get married now?

Marriage is a serious legal and personal commitment that should not be entered into lightly. Before getting married, couples should educate themselves about the legal consequences of marriage, in addition to other considerations.
Same-sex couples also face some additional considerations that heterosexual couples do not face, due to discrimination by the federal government as well as by a number of states. Deciding whether to marry is an important decision for everyone, gay or straight, but lesbian and gay couples have to be prepared for and be willing to take on those additional challenges.

A period of legal uncertainty is likely. For example, if you marry in California, you cannot be certain whether your marriage will be respected if you live in, travel to, or move to a state that has laws or constitutional amendments limiting marriage to heterosexual couples.

In addition, current federal law prohibits the federal government from recognizing marriages of same-sex couples for purposes of the many federal rights and benefits given to married heterosexual couples, such as the right to file joint federal income taxes and the right to social security benefits as a surviving spouse. Being excluded from these federal protections, and often state protections as well, is a serious hardship and can cause significant legal problems.

Important Note: Binational couples in which one member does not have permanent legal resident status in this country and anyone serving in the U.S. military should consult with an attorney with expertise in these areas of law before getting married.

If we’re already in a registered domestic partnership in California, do we have to dissolve our domestic partnership before we can marry?

No. The California domestic partnership statutes permit an individual to be both married and in a registered domestic partnership, so long as it is to the same person. In addition, there may be legal protections that are available through domestic partnership but not through marriage. For example, some states that will not honor marriages of same-sex couples may honor domestic partnerships.

Do you have to be a California resident to marry in California?

No. There is no residency requirement to marry in California.

If my partner and I are from another state and marry in California, will our marriage be valid in our home state?

If you live in another state and get married in California, you will be legally married. However, depending on where you live, your home state may not respect your marriage. Many states have passed discriminatory marriage laws, and in those states, state and local governments likely will not respect your California marriage. But even in those states, it is highly likely that at least some private businesses and other private third parties will respect your marriage – particularly those that already recognize same-sex couples through domestic partnership or a similar system.

Marriage is a serious legal decision, and same-sex couples face additional challenges and questions because of continuing discrimination against married same-sex couples by the federal government and many states. We urge couples who are considering getting married in California to proceed with caution. Before getting married in California, you should educate yourselves about the law in your state and, if possible, consult an attorney about the best way to protect your relationship based on your circumstances.

Can we file lawsuits if our marriages are not respected in other states or by the federal government?

If you feel you have been discriminated against, please contact one of the LGBT legal organizations listed on this document. We can help you figure out what options you have to protect your rights. Some types of unfair treatment can be the basis of a lawsuit, and other times the unfairness may not be suitable for a court to address. Even when litigation is an option, it is not the only option. It is always necessary to weigh the chances of success or failure because bad results in lawsuits can cause set backs and hurt our entire community. We want to increase the chances of winning overall, so it is critical that we work together to have a carefully planned strategy. Together, we can win!

What do we have to do to marry in California?

First you need to get a marriage license from the office of the Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk of any California county. You can get a license application from most counties’ websites and complete it in advance, or complete it in the county clerk’s office. Both of you must go together to the county office and present a government-issued picture ID and proof that you are over 18 years old. (If either or both is younger than 18, different procedures apply.) You’ll need to pay the license fee, which varies by county but generally is less than $100. The license will be valid for 90 days and your marriage can be performed anywhere in California. Neither a blood test nor a health certificate is required. Call ahead or visit the county’s website to learn the hours and locations of the county offices that issue licenses.

Who can marry us?

In California, clergy members, active and retired judges and court commissioners, and the Commissioner and Deputy Commissioners of Civil Marriages are authorized to perform legal marriages. The Commissioner and Deputy Commissioners of Civil Marriages perform marriage ceremonies by appointment at designated county offices. There is a fee, which generally is less than $50. Call ahead or visit the county website for more information.
Any couple wishing to marry can also have a friend deputized to perform their marriage ceremony through a county “Deputy Commissioner for a Day” program. If you choose this option, you will need at least two months advance notice and the person to be deputized to perform your ceremony will have to pay a fee and visit the county office in person to be sworn in. Visit the county website to see if your county has this program. If it does not, check whether a nearby county will deputize an out-of-county resident.
The person who performs your ceremony must complete and sign your marriage license after the ceremony. In addition, at least one witness 18 years old or older must sign the marriage license.

The license then becomes your marriage certificate, which has to be returned promptly to the county for filing.

What happens if we marry in California and then wish to divorce?

The only legal way to end a marriage is to get a divorce. If you marry in California and live in California, you can divorce by filing a petition with a California court. However, if you move to another state, or if you already live in another state, getting a divorce could be difficult. Currently, the only state other than California in which same-sex married couples have an established right to divorce is Massachusetts; however, Massachusetts has a one-year residency requirement before a person can petition a Massachusetts court for a divorce. States with civil unions or comprehensive domestic partnerships, like Connecticut, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Oregon, and Vermont, may also allow married same-sex couples to divorce, but those states also have one-year residency requirements. That means that at least one spouse must be a resident of the state for a year prior to the divorce.

Couples who are unable to obtain a divorce remain legally married. Therefore, being unable to divorce may cause serious legal problems and complications for same-sex couples who find themselves in this situation.

Could right-wing forces take away the freedom to marry at the ballot box in California?

Yes. Because the court based its decision on rights guaranteed by the California Constitution, right-wing groups are trying to amend our state Constitution to eliminate these fundamental constitutional protections and take away the basis for the decision.
These groups, which have received significant funding from out-of-state right-wing organizations, are placing an initiative on the November 2008 ballot that will ask voters to amend the California constitution to reverse the court’s decision and deny gay and lesbian couples the freedom to marry.

Already, many state leaders are expressing their opposition to this proposed constitutional amendment. For example, in a public statement on April 11, 2008, Governor Schwarzenegger stated that an initiative to amend the California Constitution to ban gay and lesbian couples from marriage was “a waste of time,” adding “I will always be there to fight against that. It will never happen.”

We agree with Governor Schwarzenegger that these outsiders are wasting their time and money trying to turn California into a state that would use its Constitution to take away civil rights and hurt families.

"Could right-wing forces take away the freedom to marry at the ballot box in California?"

Or...Can the people overrule activist judges who base legal policy on personal bias?

Yes.

Dude

You get you point across with as few words as possible.

And yet this distraction from the important issues continues. I think this line has been pretty well played out. Sooo... can we please move on to more pressing issues?

1. The US dollar has dropped even further

2. We are massively in debt to China

3. While some of you are complaining about not getting to go home early from work (poor baby), the majority of working class people would love to get those extra hours so that they could afford to make their mortgage payments, car payments, MEDICAL payments. It is hard to survive even on $15.00/hr and that is pretty high pay even for out here.

4. Gas prices are set to go even higher which makes it even harder to survive for those who have to commute everyday.

5. Soldiers are coming back psychologically screwed and the VA doesn't want to pay for their treatment so instead they are denying them the diagnosis of PTSD. We are going to end up with a who new batch of homeless vets strung out on drugs and alcohol to help numb the pain of losing friends, family, limbs, sanity...

These are not Democrat vs Republican issues! They are AMERICAN issues! It doesn't matter whether you are a "Liberal" or a "Conservative". Since when do you have to be one extreme or the other? Can't we try being in the middle for a change? You don't need to cross over the line, just be a bit understanding that some people veiw things differently.

Thats all.

Howdy

I know moderates. Moderates are friends of mine. You sir are no moderate.

Merely a leftist poser

Duncan D. Hunter just sealed his fate as far as I'm concerned. I will not vote for him now and I will discourage all of my friends in the district from voting for him. As a possible congressman, States' Rights are not up to him for approval or disapproval. He needs to butt out. There are lots of gay republicans, and republicans with gay family members.

Here's a little personal info on why I think the way I do:

I'm a life-long republican, but I have a gay brother. He is not sick or perverted as some of you like to think. He has a right to all civil liberties and protections as the rest of us. He has been in a long-term relationship and will marry as soon as the law lets them. I for one, am already planning the wedding.

As a gay man, who has already been married to this other man "in spirit" for a long time, he doesn't have the same rights as my husband and I. If my brother's partner were to go into the hospital, the hospital could bar him from visiting because they're not married.

If my brother's partner were to die, my brother would have no rights over the estate. His partner's family could come in a wipe him out of all possessions and bank accounts in the partner's name. They have had to spend money on an attorney to hash this all out, but my husband and I haven't had to because the law is very clear for married people.

I'm getting so tired of the bigotry of the republican party. I will not vote for anyone who comes out against this supreme court decision.

Duncan, you should have kept your mouth shut. I almost voted for you. This is not and will not be under your purview if I have anything to say about it.

...have anything to say about it, apparently.

Then of course, Gina, apparently doesn't care at all about what happens with her brother after he dies. The bible says this: what good does it do if a man gains the whole world and loses his soul? Regardless of what laws man passes, those laws will never trump God's eternal laws. To embrace a sin to the point of destroying a person's eternal soul, is to say that you do not really love that person at all because you are dooming them to a an eternal life absent from the Lord.

James Hartline, you are a sad man. I love my brother and I know he's a good man and he's going to heaven when he dies. The bible says lots of things, but it doesn't say anywhere that gays are going to hell. You need to remember that the bible was written my men, not by god. I'm offended and you are out of line.

The bible also says, "judge lest you not be judged."

Maybe Gina is like the rest of the human population and she doesn't truly know what is going to happen to others when they die because that judging is properly left to the almighty GOD and his judgment is personal to each of us. It's between Gina's brother and our almighty God...and no one else. And to say she doesn't care is silly because she can only do what she can in the time God has granted her on earth and she appears to have chosen Jesus's advice to go forth and love one another. Last I checked, Jesus hung out with some pretty controversial people and had quite a few things to say about the hypocracy of those who were quick to hand out death and judgment. One of the God's top ten was a prohibition on killing and many convicted murders have come to Christ.

It won't: We all know Gina's vote has the same power as everyone elses.

As for the gay agenda, I'm with howdy ya'll. I am sick of it sucking the air out of the room on both sides of the spectrum, the pro-gay far left and the anti-gay far right. 90% of the population is silenced by the extremists screaming their gay agendas when our precious nation needs help.

No, I don't have the power to doom Duncan, but I do have the power to have my views heard, which may or may not influence others.

Gina: You can keep fooling yourself all you want. The Bible is very clear about what God says about homosexuality. Like every other sin, homosexuality is listed a multitude of times in the Bible as a sin that will send those who are involved in it to hell. You can make up all the kinds of excuses and justifications that you want to justify your brother's sin as being okay. That will not change what God says in the Bible. The Bible says that homosexuality is an abomination in the eyes of God. Jesus further reitirated what God said about the matter when He says that He came to fulfill the law, not to do away with it. Mercy and grace merely allows the person time to repent, rather than immediate execution for such sins. To refuse to repent of homosexuality dooms the person to hell. You cannot possibly love someone by allowing them to drown in their own deceptions, or for that matter, your own deceptions. Furthermore, when you continue to rebel against God's word or you encourage others to continue rebelling against God's word by embracing and practicing homosexuality, the Bible says that you crucify Christ all over again by rejecting His offer of salvation. And there is not further sacrifices for doing such a horrible thing. I personally repented of homosexuality, left it and have never, ever gone back. That demonstrates the utter foolishness of what you are saying about your brother and your rejection of the word of God. There are thousands of us who have left the gay lifestyle and have never returned to that sin. This proves that your brother and your support of him are nothing more than lies and rebellion against God's word. The Bible says that today is the day of salvation. But you are rejecting that salvation as well as your brother doing the same thing. You are dooming your brother by encouraging him to accept what God has already condemned. And that is sad example of a lack of true love.

I AM OFFICIALLY ENDING THIS LINE OF DISCUSSION. ANYONE WHO WISHES TO COMMENT ON POLITICAL OR WORLDLY ISSUES PLEASE FEEL FREE, BUT THERE WILL BE NO FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THE ULTIMATE FATE OF SOULS OR THE FACTORS OF JUDGMENT.

MIGHTY THOR

James Hartline believs gays are evil because James Hartline says God says so because James Hartline said that it was true. James Hartline also believes James Hartline will be electd to city council because God told James Hartline that James Hartline would be elected and James Hartline believes that because James Hartline believes in God because James Hartline says that James Hartline does. James Hartline also has to have an opinion about everything on this blog because James Hartline believes that it directs more traffic to James Hartline's blog because James Hartline wants everyone to read his blog because James Hartline's positions are correct and anyone that disagrees with James Hartline is going to Hell because James Hartline says that God told James Hartline that it was true so James Hartline believes it and that James Hartline will be elected to City Council, Central Committee, and then he will be the new Chairman for the County Republican party because Tony Kvraic is evil since James Hartline was told by God that Tony doesn't believe in Him and so James Hartline thinks that he doesn't believe in God, that's why everyone should vote for James Hartline who is God's disciple in San Diego because James Hartline says so.

Vote Hartline '08.

Is The Proposed “Limit on Marriage” Constitutional Initiative Too Late?

The recent California Constitutional Right to Marry case, according to independent analysis, calls into question the currently proposed “Limit to Marry” Voter Initiative Constitutional Initiative. If Secretary of State Debra Bowen places it on the ballot, she would be wise to have the Legislative Analysts’s opinion consider the following cited cases and also discuss the issue with Attorney General Jerry Brown to inquire whether or not the proposed initiative can even be legally placed on the ballot.

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, Assembly member Mark Leno, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsome, and Equality California Executive Director Geoff Kors, and one of the main attorneys on the winning side of the marriage case, David Codell would be wise to immediately contact Bowen and Brown to raise the issue of the legality of the proposed initiative so that the voters of California are properly informed that there may be a potential problem in enacting the initiative if it passes this November (assuming it qualifies for the ballot).
As noted in McFadden v. Jordan (1948) 32 Cal.2d 330, 333: “The initiative power reserved by the people by amendment to the Constitution in 1911 (art. IV, s 1) applies only to the proposing and the adopting or rejecting of ‘laws and amendments to the Constitution’ and does not purport to extend to a constitutional revision.”
The proposed initiative appears to now attempt to revise the California Constitution to remove the equal protection that gays and lesbians are now afforded under the California Constitution. With that in mind, the Secretary of State must be aware of the following case:
Rippon v. Bowen (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 1308, 1313:
Article XVIII of the California Constitution allows for amendment of the Constitution by the Legislature, or initiative and revision of the Constitution by the Legislature, or a constitutional convention. There is no other method for revising or amending the Constitution. ( Livermore v. Waite (1894) 102 Cal. 113, 117, 36 P. 424 ( Livermore ).)…
“ ‘[A]mendment’ implies such an addition or change within the lines of the original instrument as will effect an improvement, or better carry out the purpose for which it was framed.” ( Livermore, supra, 102 Cal. at pp. 118-119, 36 P. 424.) The “revision/amendment analysis has a dual aspect, requiring us to examine both the quantitative and qualitative effects of the measure on our constitutional scheme. Substantial changes in either respect could amount to a revision.” ( Raven v. Deukmejian (1990) 52 Cal.3d 336, 350, 276 Cal.Rptr. 326, 801 P.2d 1077 ( Raven ).) “[A]n enactment which is so extensive in its provisions as to change directly the ‘substantial entirety’ of the Constitution by the deletion or alteration of numerous existing provisions may well constitute a revision thereof. However, even a relatively simple enactment may accomplish such far reaching changes in the nature of our basic governmental plan as to amount to a revision also.” ( Amador Valley Joint Union High Sch. Dist. v. State Bd. of Equalization (1978) 22 Cal.3d 208, 223, 149 Cal.Rptr. 239, 583 P.2d 1281 ( Amador ).)

According to the In Re Marriage Cases (May 15, 2008) 2008 WL 2051892: “Although our state Constitution does not contain any explicit reference to a “right to marry,” past California cases establish beyond question that the right to marry is a fundamental right whose protection is guaranteed to all persons by the California Constitution…. In light of the fundamental nature of the substantive rights embodied in the right to marry - and their central importance to an individual’s opportunity to live a happy, meaningful, and satisfying life as a full member of society - the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all individuals and couples, without regard to their sexual orientation. ”
The proposed initiative originally sought to limit the Constitutional right to marry to opposite sex couples and, thus as originally drafted, it was intended to limit the right to marry to a man and a woman. But an amendment can no longer accomplish this. The Right to Marry exists and in light of the recent ruling, the initiative’s unintended consequence is an attempt to revise (as opposed to amend) the Constitution which, as explained in In Re Marriage Cases (May 15, 2008) 2008 WL 2051892, is a fundamental Constructional right to “all individuals and couples, without regard to their sexual orientation.”
“Whether an initiative constitutes an amendment or revision to the Constitution does not necessarily depend on the number of constitutional provisions it affects, but on the nature of the changes it makes. (Grodin et al., The California State Constitution: A Reference Guide, supra, at pp. 303-304.) For a revision to be found, “it must necessarily or inevitably appear from the face of the challenged provision that the measure will substantially alter the basic governmental framework set forth in our Constitution.” See California Assn. of Retail Tobacconists v. State of California (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 792, 833-834 (quote set forth more fully below).
As Justice Moreno noted in a concurring opinion in Californians For An Open Primary v. McPherson (2006) 38 Cal.4th 735, 788:
Voters can propose amendments to the Constitution that will be placed on the ballot if the requisite number of signatures are obtained, but they may not propose constitutional revisions. (See Cal. Const., art. XVIII, § 3; Raven v. Deukmejian (1990) 52 Cal.3d 336, 349, 276 Cal.Rptr. 326, 801 P.2d 1077.)
See California Assn. of Retail Tobacconists v. State of California (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 792, 833-834:
Although the electorate may amend the Constitution by initiative (art. XVIII, § 3), a revision of the Constitution may be accomplished only by a constitutional convention and popular ratification (art. XVIII, § 2) or by legislative submission of the measure to the electorate (art. XVIII, § 1). ( Raven v. Deukmejian, supra, 52 Cal.3d at p. 349, 276 Cal.Rptr. 326, 801 P.2d 1077; Amador Valley Joint Union High Sch. Dist. v. State Bd. of Equalization (1978) 22 Cal.3d 208, 221, 149 Cal.Rptr. 239, 583 P.2d 1281.) It has been suggested “the revision provision is based on the principle that ‘comprehensive changes’ to the Constitution require more formality, discussion and deliberation than is available through the initiative process. [Citation.]” ( Raven v. Deukmejian, supra, 52 Cal.3d at pp. 349-350, 276 Cal.Rptr. 326, 801 P.2d 1077; cf. Legislature v. Eu, supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 506, 286 Cal.Rptr. 283, 816 P.2d 1309.) The revision/amendment analysis requires the court “to examine both the quantitative and qualitative effects of the measure on our constitutional scheme[, as] [s]ubstantial changes in either respect could amount to a revision. [Citations.]” ( Raven v. Deukmejian, supra, 52 Cal.3d at p. 350, 276 Cal.Rptr. 326, 801 P.2d 1077; Legislature v. Eu, supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 506, 286 Cal.Rptr. 283, 816 P.2d 1309.) Whether an initiative constitutes an amendment or revision to the Constitution does not necessarily depend on the number of constitutional provisions it affects, but on the nature of the changes it makes. (Grodin et al., The California State Constitution: A Reference Guide, supra, at pp. 303-304.) For a revision to be found, “it must necessarily or inevitably appear from the face of the challenged provision that the measure will substantially alter the basic governmental framework set forth in our Constitution. [Citations.]” ( Legislature v. Eu, supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 510, 286 Cal.Rptr. 283, 816 P.2d 1309, original italics.)

Therefore Schwarzenegger, Bowen, Leno, and Newsome should use their constitutional powers to obtain an opinion of the Attorney General as to whether the initiative is an amendment or a revision that would revise the equal protection clause as it relates to gays and lesbians.

Cabana Republicana hopes Gina and her brother stops by our luau at the CA-GOP Convention in Anaheim for a complimentary lei and adult beverage of their choice.