June 2, 2008, 8:17PM
Gay marriage ban qualifies for California ballot
Proposed Initiative Constitutional Amendment revision text as follows: SECTION 2. Article I, Section 7.5 is added to the California Constitution to read:
Sec 7.5 Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.
© 2008 The Associated Press
SAN FRANCISCO — California’s Secretary of State says an initiative that would again outlaw gay marriage in the state has qualified for the November ballot.
Debra Bowen says a random check of signatures submitted by the measure’s sponsors showed that they had gathered enough for it to be put to voters.
The measure would amend the state constitution to define marriage as a union “between a man and a woman.”
It would overturn the recent California Supreme Court ruling that legalized same-sex marriage in the state if it is approved by a majority of voters on Nov. 4.
California public health officials already have amended marriage license applications and told local officials to start issuing them to same-sex couples on June 17.
1298. (07-0068) Limit on Marriage. Constitutional Amendment. Summary Date: 11/29/07 Qualified: 06/02/08 Signatures Required: 694,354
Proponents: Dennis Hollingsworth, Gail J. Knight, Martin F. Gutierrez, Hak-Shing William Tam, and Mark A. Jansson c/o Andrew Pugno Amends the California Constitution to provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: The measure would have no fiscal effect on state or local governments. This is because there would be no change to the manner in which marriages are currently recognized by the state. (Initiative 07-0068.)
For additional information on the Initiative go to www.protectmarriage.com
California can turn back the tide of homophobia. Vote NO on this.
Anon.
As we are voting today and, whereas this Measure will not be on the Ballot until Nov I suggest waiting until later this summer before getting into the debate. For the record. I was a spokesperson for Proposition 22.
Oh SH*T. So in the coming half-year you’ll be pushing the anti-gay marriage initiative the way you’ve been pushing “eminent domain reform” the past half-year?
This is going to be ugly.
Oh, and fun, too.
Larry –
How could you? I may have a spiritual objection to the concept of marriage, but I also would never condone embedding discrimination into the Constitution.
You’re a better person than this.
SMS
Larry, could you (when you’re through voting today) provide some explanation of your support for this initiative?
I’m particularly interested in your reasons for support that do not refer to divinely revealed law. As you’ve doubtless concluded from other of my posts, I support marriage equality, and while I’d be perfectly happy to discuss the Bible’s view of gay people, I don’t think that discussion belongs in the arena of civil law.
Looking forward to your reply…
GREAT LARRY! I hope you can do for this proposition what you did for Prop. 98.
I have decided I agree with Larry and the other rightwingers on this after all. For the next five months I will be joining forces with them to try to make sure this measure passes and gays are never allowed to marry in this state.
Watch over the next few days for my first two very serious and groundbreaking posts:
1) Elaborating on the “Octopus of Marriage” theory, first posited by Fafnir of “Fafblog,” which explains to laymen just how heterosexual marriages can be accidentally polluted by Gayness if gay marriage is allowed; and
2) What will now be known as the Devore Effect (named after its principle local adherent Assemblyman Chuck Devore, now that Rick Santorum has passed into the dustbin of history) which shows gay marriage to be a very dangerous slippery slope leading inevitably to polygamy, man-on-dog unions, and even more exciting (but dangerous) combinations!
Together, Larry, we will pull this thing off!