Opponents of gay marriage say they'll sue over changed wording in Proposition 8

[Newsjock]

Source: Los Angeles Times

Supporters of Proposition 8, the proposed state constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage, said they would file suit today to block a change made by California Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown to the language of the measure's ballot title and summary.

Petitions circulated to qualify the initiative for the ballot said the measure would amend the state Constitution "to provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

In a move made public last week and applauded by same-sex marriage proponents, the attorney general's office changed the language to say that Proposition 8 seeks to "eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry."

Jennifer Kerns, spokeswoman for the Protect Marriage coalition, called the new language "inherently argumentative" and said it could "prejudice voters against the initiative."

Read more: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/politics/cal/la-me-gaymarriage29-2008jul29,0,7313757.story

[Ian David]

1. The anti-gay bigots can go engage in a solitary exercise of their rights under Lawrence v Texas. n/t

[endarkenment]

2. Go Jerry!

Jennifer and the rest of the hate-mongerers get so upset when their hate is unveiled for all to see.

[Fearless]

3. Oh la dee da... I'm scared now...

Tell me when they get the torches and pitchforks... then I'll be concerned.

[Zenlitened]

4. Ah, I see... they're looking for an "activist judge"...

... who will "legislate from the bench" on their behalf.

Got it.

"Activist judges" are bad bad bad... except when they aren't.

[slackmaster]

5. They probably view the situation as an activist Attorney General

Legislating from his office.

[gratuitous]

6. Awww, we don't wanna be inherently argumentative

We just want to hate and practice bigotry on a civil level. Soooo distasteful to prejudice the voters. Since same sex couples now have the right to be married in California, the ballot initiative would indeed eliminate that right. I'm sure that Ms. Kerns is very distressed to be called out on her bigotry.

If Jennifer Kerns wants to "protect" marriage, why isn't her group working to overturn the divorce laws? "What God has joined, let no man put asunder" and all that, eh Jen? Surely you're not influenced by the popular culture when you're engaged in such a righteous and dare I say holy quest to protect marriage? Don't be so lukewarm; be on fire for marriage, Ms. Kerns! Outlaw divorce now!

[redqueen]

8. They're just anti-gay... not anti-divorce. C'mon now... divorce is no threat to marriage!

Marriage... yeaaaaaah... suuuuuure that's what these bigots care about. Sure.

[crim son]

7. I'm surprised they even have the wherewithal to recognize

the "argumentive language." This suit had better come to naught.

[Unvanguard]

9. That's what it actually will do. Why are they afraid of the truth? n/t

[slackmaster]

10. Devil's Advocate says it would not actually ban same-sex marriages

It would prohibit the state government, and by preemption local governments, from recognizing them.

[readmoreoften]

20. So they think that marriage is a religious ceremony? What bullshit.

[slackmaster]

22. No, they'll say people are free to engage in any kind of spiritual unions or ceremonies they want to

But only marriages as defined by the law will qualify for things like tax benefits.

[RedLetterRev]

13. Ding-ding-ding! On to the bonus round! :) n/t

[TechBear_Seattle]

11. Argumentative or not, it is accurate. The AG has done the job he's supposed to have done

When the initiatives were circulated, same-sex couples did not have a right to marry, so the text provided then was accurate and complete: To provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

The moment the state Supreme Court ruled, the text was not accurate and complete: marriage between two men and two women was both valid and recognized in California. The Attorney General has a constitutional duty to guarantee that the title and description of initiatives are accurate; therefore he was required to change the text.

But then, the Talibangelicals never cared much about the rule of law.

[closeupready]

15. Yep! You got that right.

They want what they want, even if they get it by deceiving the citizens of California. What a bunch of scumbags. :mad:

[David__77]

12. This lawsuit will fail.

The state constitution guarantees the right of me to marry the man of my choice. This AMENDMENT would revoke that right. The title as currently assigned is absolutely accurate.

[damntexdem]

14. The language is inherently truthful, so could prejudice voters against the initiative.

We just want the facts, maam.

[slackmaster]

23. Brown's correct that the effect of the initiative materially changed as s result of the court ruling

The right of same-sex couples to marry was not recognized before then.

[Q3JR4]

16. I saw this coming,

but I'm thinking that the California court system will let the AG of California do his job, you know the one he was paid to do...

Q3JR4.

[crimsonblue]

17. Did the bigots not read the SC-CAL decision?

It seems pretty clear to me that any sort of voter initiative would NOT be considered a valid amendment. Rather, it would be a revision of the State Constitution, since the fundamental meaning (as determined by the Court) would NOT be clarified, but rather altered. A revision requires a Convention in the state to make any sort of changes. I'd almost like to see this BULLSHIT 'amendment' pass, only to get slammed down by the state Supreme Court (Not really...). Fucking bigots! Like the hetero christians have given marriage such a great name.

[comtec]

18. This is literally all they have

this little pathetic fight.
They only do it to get the base out and vote in a year that they H A T E their guy.
The idea is that while they're voting anyway, they might as well vote for mc-retard! (and I apologize to all retards for comparing you to that idiot mclame)

[YOY]

19. You do that...lets see how far you get.

Don't forget the dopey looking evangelist group prayers to be said outside the courtroom.

[ruggerson]

21. I love Jerry Brown

:)

[fascisthunter]

24. Poor, poor bigots...

such a shame...

[robertpaulsen]

25. That proposition will fail.

Majority in poll rejects gay marriage ban
By Aurelio Rojas - [e-mail]

A slight majority of California voters oppose a measure on the Nov. 4 ballot that would impose a constitutional ban on gay marriage, according to the first Field Poll on the measure.

The findings released Thursday are consistent with a May poll on the issue before Proposition 8 qualified for the ballot. The issue has received heightened attention since the state Supreme Court in May struck down a law approved by voters in 2000 that banned gay marriages.

This time, Californians likely to vote in the Nov. 4 election were asked specifically about Proposition 8, which would enshrine in the state constitution that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

Fifty-one percent of respondents said they oppose the proposed ban; 42 percent support it; and 7 percent are undecided.

http://www.sacbee.com/111/story/1091832.html