Continental promo
||  News  ||
 
June 24, 2008

Marriage Supporters Introduce New Argument to Stop Amendment

Marriage Supporters Introduce New Argument to Stop Amendment

Gay rights activists asked California's highest court Friday to keep off the November ballot a citizens' initiative that would again ban same-sex marriage. Lawyers for Equality California filed a petition arguing that the proposed amendment to the California constitution should be invalidated because its impact was not made clear to the millions of voters who signed petitions to qualify the measure before the state supreme court legalized same-sex unions. ''This court has recognized that gay and lesbian couples have a fundamental right to marry, and as of June 16 such couples have been getting married across the state,'' the petition states.

''Rather than effecting 'no change' in existing California law, the proposed initiative would dramatically change existing law by taking that fundamental right away and inscribing discrimination based on a suspect classification into our state constitution.''

The petition also claims the so-called California Marriage Protection Act should be disqualified because it would revise, rather than amend, the state constitution by altering its fundamental guarantee of equality for all -- in essence writing a law the state high court has already found unconstitutional into the constitution.

''If enacted, it would alter the underlying principles on which the California constitution is based and make far-reaching changes in the nature of our basic government plan, by severely compromising the core constitutional principle of equal citizenship (and) ... by destroying the courts' quintessential power and role of protecting minorities,'' it states.

Unlike a constitutional amendment that can be approved by voters, a constitutional revision requires convening a constitutional convention or the appointment of a commission to recommend changes to the legislature and voters, according to the petition submitted by same-sex marriage supporters.

''For good reason, there's a strict process for making revisions to our constitution, and it's more involved than simply collecting petition signatures,'' said attorney Stephen Bomse in a statement posted on the website of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, another petitioner in the case.

''That process is in place to safeguard our basic form of government, especially the most basic principle of equal protection of the laws.''

The petition names Secretary of State Debra Bowen and the measure's sponsors, a coalition of religious and social conservative groups called ProtectMarriage.com, as defendants.

Since Bowen's office already has certified the amendment for the fall election, a spokeswoman says she can remove it only through a court order.

''She has a ministerial duty to certify any initiative when they qualify through the petition process, and she can't remove an initiative without a judge's order,'' said Kate Folmar, a spokeswoman for the secretary of state.

The last time the state supreme court was asked to decide if a proposition should remain on the ballot was 2005, when it did so twice. In both decisions, the propositions were allowed to stay on the special election ballot.

In both 2005 cases, the state supreme court overturned lower courts who had taken the propositions off the ballot. The propositions were a redistricting initiative backed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and another that would have reregulated the state's electricity market.

The Arizona-based Alliance Defense Fund, which represents the measure's sponsors, called the petition a desperate move it would fight.

''This is just another attempt to force a radical political agenda upon the people of California,'' said Defense Fund senior counsel Glen Lavy. ''The opponents of marriage are willing to use any means necessary to impose their will.'' (Lisa Leff, AP)

Reader Comments

These comments are reproduced as written by visitors to this Web site. They have not been edited for content, grammar, or spelling. The viewpoints appearing here are those of the writer, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion or views of advocate.com, The Advocate, or its affiliates.

  • Name: Mandy
    Date posted: 2008-06-25 5:43 PM
    Hometown: Los Angeles, CA

    Comment:

    Continued... For those who believe He existed, Jesus was not sent only for gays and lesbians but for all of us because we were all succumbing to sin. He without sin cast the first stone, right? Who are we to judge? As a Christian, I cannot support "gay marriage" but to each his own. One day we all have to meet our maker and answer to our own sins. [And for anyone who might ask why I'm on here in the first place, I am interested in a lot of the different cultures/interests that can be found in America so I check out everyone and everything.]


  • Name: Mandy
    Date posted: 2008-06-25 5:43 PM
    Hometown: Los Angeles, CA

    Comment:

    True, through the Bible, God does speak of man laying with man and woman laying with woman as being an abomination and, naturally, He would not support marriage between a man with another man and a woman with another woman but God doesn't appear to support or oppose marriage at all. He just basically says that marriage is for those who cannot remain abstinent from sex (this is my humble interpretation of I Corinthians 7: 1-16). But that is neither here nor there. We have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.


  • Name: Art M.
    Date posted: 2008-06-24 7:46 PM
    Hometown: San Francisco

    Comment:

    John amazingly writes: "You seem to be facing a lot of lightning caused wildfires. Ancients believed lightning came from divine origins. It all boils down to righeousness and wickedness. " Funny, John, that all those wildfires are from the CONSERVATIVE portions of our state, and the liberal areas are mostly untouched. So what does that suggest to you, John? Is your god (note the SMALL g - used with derision) so achingly pathetic and powerless he's lost his aim? Or is he striking the conservative section down because they're so conservative? Considering that all the flooding going on (your mythical god used floods, too, if I'm not mistaken) in all those RED states - I guess my conjecture is proven true: your god hates conservatives!


  • Name: Tynk
    Date posted: 2008-06-24 7:41 PM
    Hometown: San Francisco

    Comment:

    One has to what a homophobe like Pat is doing trolling Gay message boards... What I'd like to see happen is for us to start hunting our enemies down, and then destroying their lives. Find out every nasty little thing about them (like Scientology does) and then using it to ensure that they could never raise their verminous little heads in public ever again. These people will never quit. Even if they gave us a federal Constitutional ammendment guaranteeing us full equality and anti-discrimination protections, these people would STILL be attacking us every chance they have. Playing nice with them hasn't EVER gotten us anywhere but worse off than we were before. Maybe if there was some cost to them fighting us - they'd quit - cowards that they are.


  • Name: Joseph
    Date posted: 2008-06-24 4:22 PM
    Hometown: Montgomery, AL

    Comment:

    (Continued from below) Also, as God later allows for multiple marriages and concubinage (there was no problem with Jacob having two wives AND a pair of concubines; Solomon also got to have roughly 1000 wives and concubines), the Bible provides a very weak foundation for the standard right-wing marriage argument. Further, the modern notion of marriage only came into being approximately 1000 years ago. When it did, it was almost exclusively for royalty and other nobles who had property and large amounts of other wealth so that marriage was much closer to a modern-day business merger rather than any sense of love and companionship. (In fact, both spouses were free to carry out discreet romantic and/or sexual trysts with other people. Women were usually more restricted during their childbearing years but as long as they provided a legitimate heir by their husbands, many of the Ladies would carry on with as much or as little discretion as the Lords.)


  • Name: Joseph
    Date posted: 2008-06-24 4:12 PM
    Hometown: Montgomery, AL

    Comment:

    It must be hard to be Pat. Pat, the Bible does NOT state categorically and without exception that marriage is "between one man and one woman". Go on, take a few minutes and find ANY passage that comes close to confirming that definition. Shoot, I'll be generous, take a few DAYS to do it. You will NOT find any such passage. The closest passage comes in Genesis 2:24 ("Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh."--KJV) but that is, somewhat interestingly, the SECOND creation story (the one in which Eve was created from Adam's rib). The FIRST creation story (from Genesis 1) makes no such contention, noting that "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." (Gen 1:27--KJV) BUT, the problem with both stories is that neither actually uses the m-word (the terms husband and wife are used, but not "marriage").


  • Name: Roger
    Date posted: 2008-06-24 10:48 AM
    Hometown: New Bedford

    Comment:

    Living in Massachusetts here, we find it amazing that instead of passing laws through the legislature, and getting a certain number of votes pro and against, that the citizens in Californis get to CHANGE THE STATE CONSTITUTION by a simple referendum, thus taking away the rights of the legislature to make law. If the laws that the legislature makes are illegal, or unconstitutional. one would certainly hope the Court would step in and overturn those illegal laws. We thought the "Law and Order" crowd would be more pro-legislature, as they always claim to be. Maybe going down this road is EASIER for them to get their way. We hope the Court dissallows this referendum as unconstitutional.


  • Name: Terri
    Date posted: 2008-06-24 10:35 AM
    Hometown: San Diego

    Comment:

    How hard is it to understand that equal rights is for everyone Pat. You are not special or better than anyone else. Nor are any of your followers. At what point in your beliefs does it say that you become "god" and are allowed to judge others? Separation of church and state, it's a protection for us all.


  • Name: peter
    Date posted: 2008-06-24 2:24 AM
    Hometown: Los Angeles

    Comment:

    John: Even if one were to assume the existence of an absolute truth, who are you to judge or decide what that truth is? What proof of divine mandate do you possess that entitles you to codify your particular religious beliefs into secular law, to the detriment of others? This is exactly why religion has no place in the foundations of democratic government. Once people start to make the argument that everybody must abide by certain rules simply because "God says so," then one can justify any form of discrimination. After all, we've heard the very same arguments against same-sex marriage before, only then it was against interracial marriage. And let's not forget whites used the Bible as justification for slavery. It's so easy for evangelical Christians to look back on those arguments and distance themselves from the racism of those views, but it is the height of self-righteous conceit to say that, THIS TIME, you've got it right about gays and lesbians, when history says otherwise.


  • Name: John
    Date posted: 2008-06-23 11:42 PM
    Hometown: La Grange

    Comment:

    The focal point is what is truth? Maybe there is a God and maybe there are many gods or maybe there is none. If there is a God and you choose not believe in Him or her, you still are subject to that God whether you like it or not. God can be one who is like a Santa Claus or like a mean ogre or pleased with some things and mad at other things. Being divine, that God has power that man does not possess. You seem to be facing a lot of lightning caused wildfires. Ancients believed lightning came from divine origins. It all boils down to righeousness and wickedness. Which is which? And is there a divine being that loves righteousness and hates wickedness?


  • Name: Martin Prince
    Date posted: 2008-06-23 10:31 PM
    Hometown: Los Angeles

    Comment:

    Well, Pat, that's nice for you that you believe your god has such rules. I assume you'll abide by them and not marry someone of your same sex. The god that other people believe in does support everyone's human right to marry the person they love. Of course many other people don't believe in any god at all, so your argument is moot. Why? Because the United States is not a theocracy, it is a Republic based on a secular constitution (in which the word god is nowhere to be found). So our laws--marriage or otherwise--must be based on what our state and federal constitutions say, not what some people believe their god(s) would want. You should thank your god for that. I'll thank the wisdom of our Founding Fathers.


  • Name: peter
    Date posted: 2008-06-23 10:17 PM
    Hometown: Los Angeles

    Comment:

    Pat: You conveniently fail to realize that your "God" is not everybody else's. We are a nation founded upon the principles of religious freedom, those same freedoms that you enjoy right now--but are at the same time unwilling to allow others to have--by saying that everybody else has to follow your version of what God says. Your--and your hateful brethren's--idea of "religious freedom" means freedom to practice religion--as long as it's YOUR religion. And for that, you are no more enlightened than the Islamic extremists who want to kill you because you are not Muslim. You are a terrorist against freedom of thought and belief, a threat to all of rational humanity.


  • Name: Mike Silbowitz
    Date posted: 2008-06-23 10:01 PM
    Hometown: LA

    Comment:

    Wow Pat. You must be borderline retarded. Time to shake your world a bit. G*d NEVER stated that marriage is between a man and a woman. Actually marriage began as a business arangement where one party took on the other bsed merely on class and wealth. It had very little to do with the sex of the partners. You sir need to get your facts straight and realize the facts aren't quite so straight.


  • Name: Pat Hopwood
    Date posted: 2008-06-23 7:33 PM
    Hometown: Temple.Tx

    Comment:

    I think we should "ALL" except GOD's word about marriage. He tells us that a MAN shall take a WOMAN for his lawfull wedded WIFE. A female and a female can't make a marriage that consist of a man and a women, if they are both women, and vice versa, a man can't make a marriage that consist of a man and a women, if they are both males. I myself, believe in what GOD says about marriage. Have a blessed day. A child of God


  • Name: Robert
    Date posted: 2008-06-23 12:45 PM
    Hometown: Tampa

    Comment:

    I wonder, can you make a petition to stop another petition? I think you could easily get the same number of signatures in a few weeks that too the RR(Religious Right) 4 years to get.


Back to top

Submit a comment for this story:

*Type your comment here (Required, 1000 characters max. HTML formatting and hyperlinks are NOT permitted.):

*Name (Required): 

*Hometown (Required): 

*E-mail address: (Required, but will not be displayed)

Is this comment for publication? 
Yes   No

Daytime phone number: (Required for print publication only and will not be displayed)

Please enter the words you see in the box, in order and separated by a space. Doing so helps prevent automated programs from abusing this service.

  

If you would like to submit a comment for posting, please fill out the form above. 

All comments submitted via this form are subject to posting or publication. (To send a private letter to an Advocate editor or writer, please use the e-mail button at the top of the page, or use snail mail.) If you would like your comment considered for publication in The Advocate magazine, please include your full name, your city of residence, and a phone number where you can be reached during business hours so that we can confirm your identity. Your e-mail address and telephone number are strictly confidential and will not be shared or used for any purpose other than to contact you about your comment.

See the Contact page for sending comments for reasons other than responding to Advocate editorial and news stories.

Please note that comments sent by fax or snail mail are unlikely to be posted, although they will be considered for publication along with all letters received via e-mail or via this Web page. Comments that chiefly concern Advocate.com content will be considered for posting only on the Web site. The Advocate reserves the right to edit submitted comments for grammar, spelling, obscenities, or libel; we will, however, do our best to preserve the original comment's style and intent. Comments considered for publication in The Advocate magazine may also be edited for length.

More Exclusives
  • View From the Hill: The End of DADT?
    Defense Secretary Robert Gates revealed that lawyers are exploring ways to ease enforcement of the military's gay ban, but cautioned that the law doesn't leave much wiggle room. He need look no further than DOD history for a lesson in altering the policy.
  • Hot Sheet: Week of July 5
    When you get back from that big 4th of July barbecue, unwind with Sacha Baron Cohen's Bruno and your favorite B-movie-mocking, basic cable robots.
  • Hungry Like the Wolf
    A master of viola, ukulele, piano, and harp, Patrick Wolf is a music prodigy -- one who, the night before this interview, spit on a cop and got himself arrested.
  • Soapside: Advocate's Guide to Daytime
    Forbes March talks about playing gay, Otalia fans outraged, update on One Life to Live’s Patricia Maurceri’s firing over gay plot point, Phillip Chancellor III big reveal, and Erica Kane goes to Africa.
  • The Faces of Federal Prop. 8
    With the federal challenge to Prop. 8 moving full speed ahead, Advocate.com sits down with the two couples named as plaintiffs in the suit.
  • Mommy, the Gays Are Coming
    After a year of advancements and celebration for gay and lesbian Colombians, the community takes to the streets of Bogota for the country's biggest pride ever.
  • The Pride of Antwerp
    Advocate.com hits the gay-friendly streets of Antwerp with openly gay police commissioner Serge Muyters.
  • Excerpt: Mean Little Deaf Queer
    In an excerpt from her humorous and harrowing new memoir, Mean Little Deaf Queer, Terry Galloway recalls her early childhood, describing feelings of ugliness, confusion about gender, and being one of the boys.
  • Top Political Blogs
    From Joe.My.God to The Daily Beast, Advocate.com spotlights a few of the best blogs that cover politics, inside and way outside the Beltway.
  • The Diva of French Television
    A hot young screenwriter who has made gay OK for millions of French viewers, Nicolas Mercier sips champagne, dons a feathered hat, and says he wants to see Colin Farrell and Jude Law go at it.