Despite concerns from some gay-rights activists that it's too early to revisit the issue, one group today pushed forward with plans for a 2010 ballot measure that would repeal Prop. 8 and allow gay marriage in California.As we've pointed out before "allow gay marriage" is misleading language. There is nobody stopping two or more people of the same sex from "marrying" right now. However, the state only issues marriage licenses to a couple consisting of one bride and one groom – in other words, an actual wedding party.
The group Love Honor Cherish filed ballot language with the state today for a measure to overturn the ban on gay marriage in the state.Again, it isn't a "ban". Jack-booted guys dropping from black helicopters are not breaking up ceremonies, and separating same-sex partners who live together.
[Much more after the jump.]
That is the first step in getting the question on the ballot.Why wasn't a ballot measure tried to begin with? I think we all know the answer to that. Looks like we're going to "vote on marriage", something we were told we "couldn't" do.
According to the group, if the state approves the language, they will begin the process of collecting the estimated 1 million signatures needed to get on the November 2010 ballot.Looking forward to the ads.
"Starting today, there is new hope for committed gay and lesbian couples who want to get married," said John Henning, executive director of Love Honor Cherish, said in a statement.Can't they take a trip to one of the handful of states issuing marriage licenses to brideless and groomless couples?
"We're back on the path toward full equality."
That's a false promise. License or not, without both the bride and the groom, it will never be equal to marriage. This reminds me of the man who undergoes a "gender reassignment", who always thinks the next surgery will make him happy and comfortable and feel like a woman – as if he could know what it feels like to be a woman and thus know when he has arrived at feeling like a woman. It's sad, really. While there are those activists who want neutered marriage licensing so that it can be wielded as a wrecking ball, other people seem to really believe that the license will make them happy, and will be what validates their relationship. But what really makes marriage the special thing that it is hinges on the uniting with the opposite sex. I can't help but feel sorry for someone who doesn't realize that, and is expecting a magical transformation with a state license.
The blog is accepting and posting comments, at least for now. Here are some of the early ones of note.
"Richard Ivey" wrote September 24, 2009 at 11:17 AM:
I am not gay but I will vote to overturn Prop 8, which violates the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution: "make no law respecting an establishment of religion"
Mr. Ivey seems to have discovered new aspects of applying the Constitution that none of the experts seems to have found before. Amazing. Of course, I'd like to know which religion the California Marriage Amendment comes from. One need not be the slightest bit "religious" to agree that marriage unites a bride and a groom. It is also interesting that he didn't include the phrase about "Congress". Congress has nothing to do with the California Marriage Amendment.
"Aaron Bloom, Chair, Ballot Initiative Committee, Love Honor Cherish" wrote September 24, 2009 at 12:03 PM:
The campaign to officially repeal Proposition 8 and remove discrimination from our state constitution has officially begun.I can't believe what a lightweight this guy is. If we removed discrimination from our state constitution, it would be meaningless. All law discriminates. Law says some things are illegal, and other things are assigned to government agencies to do (while others aren't). Both of those aspects are discrimination.
As a straight guy who will be celebrating his ninth year of marriage this December, I cannot even imagine what it must be like to not enjoy the liberty to marry the person you love.So I guess anti-bigamy laws are out, too then, huh? And what about narcissists? Can they get a license without a partner? Siblings? Rock singer fathers and actress daughters? What if someone loves someone who doesn't love them back? Please don't be so sloppy with your language if you want to be taken seriously.
Marriage is a wonderful institution that provides stability, rights (and responsibilities) and strengthens families -- and two consenting adults should enjoy the freedom to marry regardless of their race, religion or sexual orientation.Why only two? Are you a bigot?
We must stand up for one another to ensure that we are all treated fairly and equally under the law.Which we all are now, and were last year, and were the year before that.
LGBT Californians pay taxes and contribute to society just like us straight folk.How many clichés can this guy fit in? I pay my taxes, therefore I deserve to get a University of California degree even though taking more tests and completing more course loads doesn't suit me.
This is a human rights issue that all people should care about, even if they are straight.
A human rights issue? Why didn't MLK or Gandhi ever say anything about it? Why weren't any of the main "human rights" groups talking about this 20 years ago? What about our right to self-government and one vote per citizen? I have to wonder what new "human rights" will be disovered in the future.
"Lloyd Baltazar Web Director, SFV Equality.org" wrote September 24, 2009 at 01:23 PM:
Finally, the LGBT community have some validation as we fight to repeal Prop 8 in 2010.You're right – there has been absolutely no validation of the LGBT community before this moment. None whatsoever. Yes, this and only this is what will validate the LGBT community. Everything else that supposedly validated the LGBT community before today has been a total sham and farce and meaningless, right?
Let's take back marriage equality for California in order to achieve lifestyle tolerance and cultural diversity as an American nation!
We are already tolerant, thank you very much. Perhaps you need to look up that word?
Looks like it is going to be an entertaining 13 months.
"There is nobody stopping two or more people of the same sex from "marrying" right now."
ReplyDeleteBut the law doesn't recognize those relationships, which is the whole point.
"However, the state only issues marriage licenses to a couple consisting of one bride and one groom – in other words, an actual wedding party."
Many beg to differ on what consists of an actual wedding party.
"Again, it isn't a "ban"."
That's fairly cartoonish definition of "ban." No need for helicopters, it's enough that same-sex couples are turned away when they request marriage licenses.
"Looks like we're going to "vote on marriage", something we were told we "couldn't" do. "
Huge moral difference between voting to disallow other people from getting married, and voting to allow them to do so. Also, Prop 8 means that ballot initiatives are the only recourse remaining.
"Can't they take a trip to one of the handful of states issuing marriage licenses to brideless and groomless couples? "
They could, but they shouldn't have to.
"That's a false promise. License or not, without both the bride and the groom, it will never be equal to marriage."
This is like saying women will never be equal to men, because they're different. Doesn't mean the law shouldn't strive to treat them as equally as possible.
"other people seem to really believe that the license will make them happy, and will be what validates their relationship."
Oddly enough, that license (and the accompanying ceremony) really has made countless couples, both gay and straight, extremely happy.
"But what really makes marriage the special thing that it is hinges on the uniting with the opposite sex."
Thousands of same-sex married couples beg to differ.
"One need not be the slightest bit "religious" to agree that marriage unites a bride and a groom."
Except when it unites two brides or two grooms.
"Congress has nothing to do with the California Marriage Amendment."
Ever heard of the incorporation doctrine?
"Which we all are now, and were last year, and were the year before that."
Funny how it's always the privileged majority that claims there isn't any discrimination. The ones who actually experience it beg to differ.
"University of California degree even though taking more tests and completing more course loads doesn't suit me."
It's correct for the UofC to require completion of the coursework. It's not correct for a marriage license to require both bride and groom. This is the whole point.
"Why didn't MLK or Gandhi ever say anything about it?"
Yeah, because MLK and Gandhi were the final arbiters on what constituted human rights.
"Why weren't any of the main "human rights" groups talking about this 20 years ago?.
They are now, as did Coretta Scott King, by the way.
"I have to wonder what new "human rights" will be disovered in the future."
Me too.
But the law doesn't recognize those relationships, which is the whole point.
ReplyDeleteFalse. The law recognizes those relationships in a variety of ways (depending on juristiction). Either by Domestic Partnership, Civil Union, Reciprocal Benficiaries, or by contract.
Many beg to differ on what consists of an actual wedding party.
Sounds like the best place to deal with it is by popular referendum then.
Let everyone hash it out and decide.
That's fairly cartoonish definition of "ban."
Of the two Playful clearly has the the most accurate use of ban. There are states that actively prosecute people engated in illegal actions. This is not so for same-sex couples calling their relationship a marriage.
Imagine if drug use was banned by simply not recognizing the sale or distribution theirof.
Huge moral difference between voting to disallow other people from getting married, and voting to allow them to do so.
Interesting. Since when does the state decide morality, Ax?
But for arguments sake, how does the state decide morality. Is it from listening to a small minority trying to impose its view of morality on the public, or is it by democratic discussion.
But for reality's sake, though marriage has many moral guidelines associated with it, we are discussing a definition. Definitions exist because words mean something.
Marriage means to me an exercise of equally recognizing the rights and responsibilities between genders in the act of procreation. Apparently the majority of California agrees. That isn't to say same-sex relationships are not recognized, it is simply to say that relationship is recognized because of the importance of gender equality within each marriage. Both in how children are created and how we keep those in-tact bonds together when they are raised.
They are now, as did Coretta Scott King, by the way.
"Marriage is neither a conservative nor a liberal issue; it is a universal human institution, guaranteeing children fathers, and pointing men and women toward a special kind of socially as well as personally fruitful sexual relationship. Gay marriage is the final step down a long road America has already traveled toward deinstitutionalizing, denuding and privatizing marriage. It would set in legal stone some of the most destructive ideas of the sexual revolution: There are no differences between men and women that matter, marriage has nothing to do with procreation, children do not really need mothers and fathers, the diverse family forms adults choose are all equally good for children. What happens in my heart is that I know the difference. Don't confuse my people, who have been the victims of deliberate family destruction, by giving them another definition of marriage."
-- Walter Fauntroy-Former DC Delegate to CongressFounding member of the Congressional Black CaucusCoordinator for Martin Luther King, Jr.'s march on DC
"False. The law recognizes those relationships in a variety of ways (depending on juristiction). Either by Domestic Partnership, Civil Union, Reciprocal Benficiaries, or by contract."
ReplyDeleteI stand corrected. But I should point out that the CA SC ruled those to be insufficient in addressing discrimination against same-sex couples.
"Sounds like the best place to deal with it is by popular referendum then."
Not if there's a constitutional right at stake.
"Of the two Playful clearly has the the most accurate use of ban."
So long as you concede that my definition of ban is also valid, then you concede that Playful Walrus was mistaken in arguing that no ban existed.
"Interesting. Since when does the state decide morality, Ax?"
Generally speaking, the state doesn't and shouldn't. If a court were to consider the legality of Prop 8 (and it did in Strauss v. Horton, and will again in Perry v. Schwarzenegger), it should do so on the basis of constitutional law and not morality. But that shouldn't prevent anyone from pointing out its moral injustice.
"But for arguments sake, how does the state decide morality. Is it from listening to a small minority trying to impose its view of morality on the public, or is it by democratic discussion."
What would it even mean for a state to decide morality? You mean like a law declaring that stealing is morally wrong (as opposed to one that prohibited stealing)? Whether by small minority or democratic consensus, I would rather that the state refrain from passing such laws at all.
"But for reality's sake, though marriage has many moral guidelines associated with it, we are discussing a definition. Definitions exist because words mean something."
Yes, and those meanings change and are subject to different beliefs and interpretation. Also, legally mandated definitions can be discriminatory and unconstitutional.
"Marriage means to me an exercise of equally recognizing the rights and responsibilities between genders in the act of procreation. Apparently the majority of California agrees"
I don't accept this definition. Neither did the CA SC in their ruling, which had a lengthy discussion on the meaning and substance of the right to marry.