BLOG VIEW | HEADLINE VIEW

CULTURE

POLITICS

MUSIC

CELEB

CA Bid To "Protect" Marriage Comes Up Short

WEDNESDAY DECEMBER 28 2005 2:00 PM

Submitted by Subrosa. Edited By Shalome.

Some gay marriage opponents in California are in full-scale retreat mode after failing to gain the requisite number of signatures to qualify a constitutional amendment banning gay marriages for the June ballot. Legal counsel for ProtectMarriage.com, the group attempting to qualify the initiative, said the failure was due to

... the difficulty of raising money in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina; the dimming prospect that the California Legislature will reconsider a bill legalizing gay marriage next year; and a lawsuit on the issue that is not expected to reach the state Supreme Court until late 2006.

Those reasons might have been compelling, if it weren't for the fact that they came up over 200,000 signatures short of the 500,000+ signature requirement. In other words: they're disorganized and limping.

Of course, their failure could also be the result of a fracture among anti-gay Californians. A grammatically-challenged and much more insidious splinter group called VoteYesMarriage.com is gearing up for its own signature drive for the November 2006 ballot. And, unlike the flat prohibition on gay marriages that the ProtectMarriage.com kids were pushing, this amendment goes after those dastardly domestic partnerships as well.

On July 11, the Legislative Analyst’s Office described the major points of the Voters’ Right to Protect Marriage Initiative as follows:
“Major Provisions: This measure amends the State Constitution to recognize marriage only between a man and a woman. In addition, the measure prohibits the Legislature, courts, and state and local government agencies from granting the rights of marriage to any unmarried persons. The measure also prohibits government agencies from requiring private entities to extend the rights of marriage to unmarried persons.”

Of course, lawyers for VoteYesMarriage are currently challenging the above legislative summary, which must be attached to all petitions when gatherers are collecting signatures, as being overly descriptive of what the initiative would actually do. Luckily, their proposed amendment would also prohibit the abolishment of marriage altogether, so those throngs of non-existent anti-straight marriage activists would have to go find something better to do with their time.

At any rate, the battle is far from over, but marital equality activists can take heart that at least one amendment has bitten the dust… for now.

13 Comments

Dead_Ringer

I'm lost

September 2004

DEC 28, 2005 02:07 PM

That's a shame.

PointBlank

New York, NY

November 2004

DEC 28, 2005 02:10 PM

*prepares to pillage unprotected marriage*

SUCKERS!!

Subrosa

San Francisco, CA

July 2004

DEC 28, 2005 02:15 PM

PointBlank said:
*prepares to pillage unprotected marriage*

SUCKERS!!

Seriously. My favorite part of the VoteYesMarriage argument on why the legislative summary is inadequate:

• Lockyer completely ignores the chief points of the Voters’ Right to Protect Marriage Initiative. He omits how the proposed constitutional amendment would prohibit the abolishment of marriage, and leaves out how it would protect private organizations and businesses from being required to undermine or diminish marriage.

Now, these are issues that I follow very closely. Probably much closer than most. And I've never heard of any movement WHATSOEVER (let alone a substantive one) to abolish the institution of marriage altogether.

But the AG is being sued because the amendment protects something that doesn't need protecting (and, oh by the way, also gets rid of important rights that Californians already have).

Incredible.

NickFaust

USA

April 2004

DEC 28, 2005 02:36 PM

Soo... that would be Human Race 1, Fucktards 0.

Wait, with the Dover, PA ID decision that makes it Human Race 2, Fucktards 0.

Way to go human race!

Subrosa

San Francisco, CA

July 2004

DEC 28, 2005 02:51 PM

NickFaust said:
Soo... that would be Human Race 1, Fucktards 0.

Well, counting Prop 22, the SF gay marriages last year and their subsequent invalidation by the courts, then the SF trial court's decision last spring that Prop. 22 was unconstitutional, then the legislature's passage of a bill legalizing gay marriage, then that bill's subsequent veto by the governer, THEN this...

I'd put the score in the Great Golden State Gay Marriage Debate at:
Human Race: 4, Fucktards: 3.
But it's still about midway through the 2nd Quarter. Anything can happen.

sirloins

Austin, TX

October 2005

DEC 28, 2005 04:19 PM

I'm still at a loss as to why this is even an issue. I can't understand why some people would want to propose an amendment to prevent someone from marrying someone else.

Fucktard doesn't even begin to describe these... fuckmonkeytarddonkeyfuckcocks!

Don't we have a proposition system in place here in Cali? I was under the impression that nothing becomes law or amended until it is voted on.

What's worse is that the gay marriage con arguments haven't a leg to stand on. Anything negative they say of gay marriage are equally true of hetero marriage.

If these people were girls, I'd kick them in the bollocks!

s5

STAFF

San Francisco, CA

DEC 28, 2005 05:02 PM

Subrosa said:
Now, these are issues that I follow very closely. Probably much closer than most. And I've never heard of any movement WHATSOEVER (let alone a substantive one) to abolish the institution of marriage altogether.

Gay Shame opposes marriage in all forms:

http://www.gayshamesf.org/endmarriage.html

But Gay Shame are a very small pack of reactionaries, marginalized by the gay community, unwittingly doing the work of the Christian Right.

I'm surprised you haven't heard of them. Their "GAY SHAME - END MARRIAGE" stencils are all over sidewalks in the Mission. I make sure to stomp on them whenever I get a chance.

hadees

Austin, TX

December 2003

DEC 28, 2005 05:32 PM

s5 said:

I am not sure if this is exactly the same but I have heard some libertarians calling for an end to government involvement marriage. ITheir thinking is why should the government even be giving tax cuts to married people and extra benfits that single people don't get. They raise some intresting points.

Subrosa

San Francisco, CA

July 2004

DEC 28, 2005 05:55 PM

s5 said:

Hmm. I've actually never seen those. And if I did I didn't recognize them. And I live in the Mission. I'll have to look for them.

Regardless, I hardly think there's any substantial movement. Certainly not one that necessitates a constitutional amendment in response.

[Edited on Dec 28, 2005 by Subrosa]

KMFCM

Peekskill, NY

September 2002

DEC 28, 2005 06:02 PM

hadees said:

I am not sure if this is exactly the same but I have heard some libertarians calling for an end to government involvement marriage. ITheir thinking is why should the government even be giving tax cuts to married people and extra benfits that single people don't get. They raise some intresting points.

That really IS a good point.

Was it already mentioned here that gay marriage is completely legal in South Africa??? (I just heard that on the Daily Show rerun tonight)

dakini

Frisco, TX

October 2005

DEC 30, 2005 05:24 AM

Come on, Cali, I am rooting for you. Equal rights for everyone, I say.

[Edited on Dec 30, 2005 7:25AM]

NickFaust

USA

April 2004

DEC 30, 2005 06:26 AM

KMFCM said:

That really IS a good point.

Was it already mentioned here that gay marriage is completely legal in South Africa??? (I just heard that on the Daily Show rerun tonight)

Actually, I hope that government stays involved in marriage. Marriage - when you strip away all the church related bullshit, is a contact, and one of the primary functions of government - even in the minimalist state - is to regulate contracts. It is a function that allows for an supports fair transactions between humans and is extremely important.

I just want them to treat it like any other contract.

As for taxation, I believe that people joining their incomes and establishing households should not be evaluated - from the perspective of taxation - the same as single individuals. The simple fact is that forming units and procreating is something that society has a vested interest in and is something for which incentives should be provided - or at least they should not be penalized by taxing their joint income as if they were single.

gamedork

Two Rivers, WI

December 2005

DEC 30, 2005 07:42 AM

s5 said:Gay Shame opposes marriage in all forms:

http://www.gayshamesf.org/endmarriage.html

But Gay Shame are a very small pack of reactionaries, marginalized by the gay community,..

Um...okay...? So I read their website and I'm pretty sure they have no idea what they are trying to achive.

Unless what they are trying to achive is creating a world where they can't feel special..?

Maybe I'm just selling out to the system as I get older, but wouldn't all of their energy be better spent raising money to feed all the starving American kids or buying them reading glasses or maybe teching them to read in the first place?

Is it too much to ask to try and soulve the problems we already have before we start creating new ones to get in a twist about? I mean really, their website features pictures of a protest against cosmetic surgery, for Jebus sake. "Those underprivlaged kids in MN can wait a little longer for another meal, right now we have to stop that young woman from getting the boob-job she has always wanted to make her feel mor confident."

I think they are playing for the Fucktards, but I'm not sure. Never been much of a sports fan.

As for gay marrigae, I say let them have it. Happy Americans are far less likely to shoot at eachother than crabby Americans. And who am I to stand in the way of two people trying to be happy?

Shit, when I grow up all I want to be is happy.
-gb

You may now proceed to flame me.

[Edited on Dec 30, 2005 by gamedork]