What was precise wording for Prop 8

[kurt_cagle]

I haven't seen the exact text, and one thing that I've wondered is whether it was a sleeper amendment - one of those that, upon initial reading, actually seems to suggest the opposite of what the initiative actually does. I've seen a number of those in Washington state as well. If that's the case, it may have been a reason why it passed.

Washington state also has an initiative in place significantly raising the ante of what's required to get an initiative on the ballot in terms of signatures. This makes it much harder for "spurious" amendments like Prop 8 to get on. Don't know if it passed or not.

[MadAsHellNewYorker]

1. "Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry"

http://vote.sos.ca.gov/props/index.html

[plaintiff]

2. I think this from Wiki is accurate

ELIMINATES RIGHT OF SAME-SEX COUPLES TO MARRY. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Changes the California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in California. Provides that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. Fiscal Impact: Over next few years, potential revenue loss, mainly sales taxes, totaling in the several tens of millions of dollars, to state and local governments. In the long run, likely little fiscal impact on state and local governments.<29>

[Xithras]

3. It's clear, here's the text. One line.

It simply adds a new line to the state constitution:

SEC. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

Not much wiggle room.

[plaintiff]

4. That's what it -does-, I believe the OP was asking about the wording of the Proposition

...

[Xithras]

6. That IS the wording of the proposition.

The rest is just explanatory text. What I posted there is the actual text of the law that is being inserted into the constitution. Everything else in the proposition is secondary, because only the constitutional change has any legal power.

The proposition creates section 7.5 in our state constitution, with the text I posted there.

[plaintiff]

8. That is what I said.

:shrug:

[PermanentRevolution]

7. Florida's is worse, I think.

“Inasmuch as marriage is the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife, no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized.”

CA Prop 8 seems to leave room for equivalent domestic partnerships as long as they're not called "marriage." It looks like Florida's version invalidates those, too.

[Xithras]

9. California has a domestic partnership law.

In fact, one of the arguments used by the pro-h8 side was that "Gays don't need marriage because they already have domestic partnerships." If 8 had invalidated those partnerships too, it would have failed.

[TechBear_Seattle]

5. Here it is, right from the California AG's office

http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/title-sum/prop8-title-sum.htm

Click on the appropriate link for the full text.

Added: The full text is ridiculously simple.

SECTION 1. Title
This measure shall be known and may be cited as the “California Marriage Protection Act.”

SECTION 2. Section 7.5 is added to Article I of the California Constitution, to read:

SEC. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.