Author Topic: Supreme Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage  (Read 112784 times)

MCWAY

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19253
  • Getbig!
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #250 on: June 13, 2008, 08:44:45 AM »
Foes of California same-sex marriage ruling ask a lower court to delay it
With a state Supreme Court ruling set to become law June 16, a group asks an appeals court to delay its imposition until after a November vote on the issue. The ruling's proponents deride the effort.
By Maura Dolan
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

SAN FRANCISCO -- Opponents of same-sex marriage asked the California Court of Appeal today to put on hold a ruling that permits gays to marry next week, a move that supporters of the ruling quickly belittled as frivolous and certain to fail.

The California Supreme Court, which approved same-sex nuptials in a historic ruling May 15, already has refused to delay the effective date of its decision. Opponents wanted the court to postpone the ruling's effect until after a November ballot initiative to limit marriage to opposite-sex couples. The ruling becomes law June 16 at 5 p.m.

The 1st District Court of Appeal, which had ruled 2-1 against same-sex marriage, is bound by the Supreme Court's decision.

San Francisco City Atty. Dennis Herrera, whose office helped litigate the marriage case, called the petition "beyond frivolous . . . absurd."

"I am not aware of a process that enables parties to effectively appeal a higher court ruling to a lower court," Herrera said.

But Liberty Counsel, the group that filed the petition on behalf of sponsors of the November marriage initiative, said the Court of Appeal procedurally regains the case on June 16 and could issue a stay.

"This court should stay the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples to prevent a violation of federal and state law by opening the door to de facto polygamy and polyamory," the petition by the Christian-affiliated group said.

I think I linked a similar article from Liberty Counsel. As this blurb mentions, the Court of Appeal regains the case on the 16th. The argument goes that the Court of Appeal can issue the stay, because the California constitution requires that either the Legislature or the electorate must make the new law (signed by the governor) and the new legal forms to accomodate gay "marriage".

The problem for gay "marriage" supporters is that, should the stay occur, by the time the Legislature gets around to doing that, the election will have occured with the vote on the marriage amendment. If it passes, marriage will clearly be defined as a 1M-1W union, nullifying the courts ruling.

And, as stated before, even if gay couples do get marriage licenses starting next week, they become void, if the amendment passes in November.

Deicide

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22921
  • Reapers...
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #251 on: June 13, 2008, 09:25:24 AM »
I think I linked a similar article from Liberty Counsel. As this blurb mentions, the Court of Appeal regains the case on the 16th. The argument goes that the Court of Appeal can issue the stay, because the California constitution requires that either the Legislature or the electorate must make the new law (signed by the governor) and the new legal forms to accomodate gay "marriage".

The problem for gay "marriage" supporters is that, should the stay occur, by the time the Legislature gets around to doing that, the election will have occured with the vote on the marriage amendment. If it passes, marriage will clearly be defined as a 1M-1W union, nullifying the courts ruling.

And, as stated before, even if gay couples do get marriage licenses starting next week, they become void, if the amendment passes in November.

I say go get those rocks just like the Bible says we should!
I hate the State.

Colossus_500

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3993
  • Psalm 139
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #252 on: June 13, 2008, 12:06:11 PM »
source??
citizenlink.org

How have you been personally harmed??
Great question for you to delve into and find the answer, bro. 



Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41015
  • one dwells in nirvana
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #253 on: June 15, 2008, 10:48:22 AM »
citizenlink.org
Great question for you to delve into and find the answer, bro. 

I haven't been harmed at all.

How about you?

btw - the link you posted appears to be owned or somehow connected to Dobson who I personally think is a world class lunatic. 

BayGBM

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19432
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #254 on: June 16, 2008, 07:21:23 AM »
Lesbian pioneer activists see wish fulfilled
Rachel Gordon, Chronicle Staff Writer
Monday, June 16, 2008

Lesbian rights pioneers Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon, together for more than half a century, will get married in San Francisco City Hall this evening wearing the same pastel-colored pantsuits they donned four years ago when they wed the first time.

Once again, they will be the first of thousands of same-sex couples rushing to marry. But this time their wedding will be carried by the strength of a California Supreme Court decision that granted lesbian and gay couples the constitutional right to marry.

Another change: Their pantsuits. The hems have been taken up since Martin, in pale purple, and Lyon, in powder blue, put them on for their first wedding in City Hall on Feb. 12, 2004. The nuptials that San Francisco city officials sanctioned four years ago were later deemed illegitimate by the state.

"We're both getting shorter," said Lyon, who at 83 is four years younger than her partner.

What hasn't shrunk is the San Francisco couple's willingness to be at the forefront of a decadeslong civil rights battle, starting for them in an era when homosexuality could get you fired, denied an apartment or arrested during one of the frequent police raids on bars catering to gay men and lesbians.

Their life together as activists has entwined the political and the personal and has been marked by a series of groundbreaking and often controversial undertakings.

Where they started

They founded the Daughters of Bilitis in 1955, the first national lesbian organization. In 1964, they helped launch the Council on Religion and the Homosexual, bringing together national religious leaders and gay and lesbian activists to discuss homosexual rights. Lyon, in a challenge to the leadership of the feminist movement, was the first open lesbian on the board of the National Organization for Women in 1973. Martin, meanwhile, helped lead a successful campaign to get the American Psychiatric Association to take homosexuality off its list of mental illnesses.

The couple made international headlines in 2004 when they became the first same-sex couple to wed after San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom and City Attorney Dennis Herrera decided to test state law by allowing more than 4,000 gay and lesbian couples to marry. After a month, the California Supreme Court halted the weddings on the grounds that city officials acted without proper authority.

Attention will turn to Martin and Lyon again this evening when they become the first same-sex couple in San Francisco, and perhaps in all of California, to marry when the state Supreme Court's decision officially takes effect just after 5 p.m.

"It's really just amazing the progress we've made," Lyon said.

Kate Kendell, executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, a public interest law firm that joined the legal battle to overturn the ban on same-sex marriage, said the moment rightfully belongs to them.

"It would not be happening were it not for Del and Phyllis," she said. "They and a small cadre of others sacrificed everything to build a foundation that got us to this historic place where we are today."

Kendell, who met the couple 14 years ago, has become their de facto gatekeeper and helped plan their wedding.

The invitation-only ceremony will take place behind closed doors in the Mayor's Office at City Hall with about 50 family members, friends, neighbors and political allies in attendance. Newsom will preside.

"We have to remember to say, 'I do.' OK?" Lyon said.

"I think we can do that," Martin said.

The interchange was both playful and poignant. The years are catching up with Lyon and Martin. The timing of the California Supreme Court's ruling isn't lost on them.

"We're not getting younger," said Martin, quieter and frailer than her partner, during an interview last week in their Noe Valley home.

Decades together

The thought of being able to get married was not one they could even imagine when the two first shared after-work drinks in Seattle in 1950, a get-together that at first sparked a friendship and two years later a love affair that has endured.

To grasp the longevity of their relationship, one only has to know what they paid in 1955 for their small hillside home with a sweeping view of San Francisco. Their paltry salaries as a secretary and a bookkeeper helped them cover the $11,000 price.

The years of their accomplishments and passions are displayed on their walls: plaques of appreciation from politicians and civil rights groups and photographs and drawings of such public figures as Hillary Rodham Clinton, Dianne Feinstein, Shirley Chisholm and Eleanor Roosevelt. There is the collection of campaign buttons for Democratic candidates, the baseball autographed by Giants players, and a vast collection of books, including copies of "Lesbian/Woman," which they co-wrote in 1972.

They said they spend a lot of time at home now - getting up and down the steep stairs that separate their front door from the sidewalk isn't as easy as it once was.

A limousine will pick them up this afternoon for the ride to City Hall, where they probably will be met by cheers from well-wishers and, perhaps, jeers from protesters who believe marriage should be reserved just for heterosexuals.

After Martin and Lyon finalize the paperwork and take their vows, they are scheduled to step onto the balcony overlooking the ornate City Hall rotunda for a public cake-cutting ceremony. That will be followed by a private reception at a nearby restaurant, and then it's back home again.

There will be no honeymoon.

Their daughter, born to Martin 66 years ago during a brief marriage that ended in divorce, will be with them to share in the day's events.

"It's really a big deal for them and for me to have this happen at this point in their lives," said Kendra Mon, a social worker from Petaluma who was raised by her two moms and her dad and his new wife. "It's like icing on the cake and a reminder of how far we've come."

She thought more about the significance for a few minutes and then likened it to the classic Christmas movie "It's a Wonderful Life" - but with a twist.

In the movie, the character played by James Stewart gets to see what his small town and family would be like if he hadn't existed.

"But," Mon said, "this is like my moms get to see what life is like because they've been here."

BayGBM

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19432
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #255 on: June 16, 2008, 06:00:10 PM »
Del Martin, 87, center left, and Phyllis Lyon, 84, center right, are married by San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom , center, in a special ceremony at City Hall in San Francisco, Monday, June 16, 2008. Also pictured are the couple's witnesses, Roberta Achtenberg, left, and Donna Hitchens. Lyon and Martin became the first officially married same sex couple after California's Supreme Court declared gay marriage legal.

drkaje

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 18188
  • Quiet, Err. I'm transmitting rage.
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #256 on: June 16, 2008, 06:55:06 PM »
So Bay..... when are you jumping the broom?

BayGBM

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19432
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #257 on: June 17, 2008, 05:48:17 PM »
Opponents lose last-ditch legal bid to stop same-sex weddings
Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer
Tuesday, June 17, 2008

(06-17) 12:41 PDT SAN FRANCISCO -- While today's gay and lesbian weddings proceeded, a state appeals court rejected a conservative religious group's last-ditch attempt to put same-sex marriages on hold until California voters consider the issue in November.

The Campaign for California Families argued that the state Supreme Court's ruling legalizing same-sex weddings should not take effect until the Legislature had a chance to rewrite or repeal a host of laws governing marriages and domestic partnerships.

The organization also said the courts should avoid confusion about the status of marriages performed in the next few months by suspending the ruling until a Nov. 4 vote on an initiative that would write a ban on same-sex marriage into the state Constitution.

The First District Court of Appeal in San Francisco denied a stay without comment this morning after receiving the case from the state's high court, whose ruling became final at 5 p.m. Monday. The appeals court returned the case to a Superior Court judge in San Francisco for final orders to state officials to make sure each county clerk's office was complying with the marriage ruling.

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41015
  • one dwells in nirvana
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #258 on: June 17, 2008, 05:51:41 PM »
Now that gays can get married it's probably going to be unbearable for the those conservative, republican, closet queens to stay married to their frustrated wives

MCWAY

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19253
  • Getbig!
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #259 on: June 18, 2008, 05:59:24 AM »
Opponents lose last-ditch legal bid to stop same-sex weddings
Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer
Tuesday, June 17, 2008

(06-17) 12:41 PDT SAN FRANCISCO -- While today's gay and lesbian weddings proceeded, a state appeals court rejected a conservative religious group's last-ditch attempt to put same-sex marriages on hold until California voters consider the issue in November.

The Campaign for California Families argued that the state Supreme Court's ruling legalizing same-sex weddings should not take effect until the Legislature had a chance to rewrite or repeal a host of laws governing marriages and domestic partnerships.

The organization also said the courts should avoid confusion about the status of marriages performed in the next few months by suspending the ruling until a Nov. 4 vote on an initiative that would write a ban on same-sex marriage into the state Constitution.

The First District Court of Appeal in San Francisco denied a stay without comment this morning after receiving the case from the state's high court, whose ruling became final at 5 p.m. Monday. The appeals court returned the case to a Superior Court judge in San Francisco for final orders to state officials to make sure each county clerk's office was complying with the marriage ruling.

I thought this was about following the state's constitution, which states that the Legislature has to revise the laws and approved the marriage licenses, before such become official.

This is about timing and influencing the vote for the November marriage amendment. But which way will it go? Will people feel sympathetic about potentially taking marriage licenses away from same-sex couples that already have them and vote the amendment down, or will voters (outraged by the judges' disregard for their views) show up en masse and pass the amendment by an even larger margin than they did with Proposition 22?

We'll find out in 41/2 months.

One thing gay activists groups are stating is that same-sex couples should NOT file more lawsuits, until they get a "critical mass" of states that support their cause, citing that if they lose, it will be harder to win later. And, they should target the states in which they have the best chance of winning (i.e. states where it's quite difficult to amend its constitutions.




Colossus_500

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3993
  • Psalm 139
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #260 on: June 30, 2008, 06:43:27 AM »
That's No Man, That's My Wife
Burt Prelutsky - townhall.com
Monday, June 30, 2008

As you may have noticed, the California Supreme Court recently decided by a 4-3 margin to green light same-sex marriages. In doing so, they over-turned a ballot measure that 61% of the voters approved in 2000, which stated that “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in California.” Although there is nothing in the state constitution that warrants that vote being set aside by four jurists, these days there’s nothing unusual about 56% of the judges over-ruling 61% of the electorate.

It’s no big surprise that the three judges who demurred had been appointed by Republican governors. What is odd and rather troubling about this turn of events is that three of the four judges who think same-sex marriages is a swell idea were also appointed by Republican governors. And lest you leap to the perfectly reasonable conclusion that this can all be laid at Gov. Schwarzenegger’s doorstep, the only judge he put on the bench was Carol Corrigan, and she was one of the three who dissented. Chief Justice Ron George and Kathryn Werdegar were appointed by Pete Wilson, and Joyce Kennard by George Deukmejian. In fact, of the seven justices, only Carlos Moreno owes his black robe to a Democrat, Gray Davis.

When you realize that David Souter was placed on the U.S. Supreme Court by George Herbert Walker Bush, you begin to wonder if Republicans bother paying any attention at all to such matters. When it comes to picking judges, do they flip a coin or do they just pick names out of a hat?

I realize that many people, after several years of unrelenting gay propaganda in the media, have been brain-washed into believing that to oppose same-sex marriages is to be the worst kind of bigot. They have cleverly insisted that it is akin to being opposed to bi-racial unions. That, of course, is sheer sophistry. What marriage of a man and a woman of different races is akin to is marriage between a man and a woman of different religions or different nationalities. Marriage between two men or two women, on the other hand, is the end result of political correctness carried to its ludicrous extreme.

If you disagree, please let me know on what particular basis, you could legally or morally oppose marriage between a sister and her brother or a father and his daughter or, for that matter, between a man and a female softball team, so long as they were all consenting adults. I can’t wait until justices George, Werdegar, Kennard and Moreno, are asked to adjudicate just such a case in the future. And, believe me, having swung open that particular door, it’s only a matter of time until a parade of human oddities come marching in.

It is fascinating how completely the heterosexual world has come to accept homosexuality as a norm. Back in the 1890s, Oscar Wilde sued the Marquis of Queensberry, the father of Wilde’s male lover, for daring to call him a sodomite. Three days into the ill-advised libel suit, Wilde’s lawyers decided to call it off when it became all too apparent that the Marquis was going to be able to prove his case.

At that point, Wilde was arrested on the charge of gross indecency. During the trial, Wilde was asked to explain what the Marquis’s son, Lord Alfred Douglas, had been referring to when he wrote to Wilde of the love that dares not speak its name. “It is beautiful,” said Wilde, who was notorious for picking up sailors, servants and young male prostitutes, “it is fine, it is the noblest form of affection. It is intellectual, and it repeatedly exists between an older and a younger man, when the older man has intellect, and the younger man has all the joy, hope and glamour of life before him.”

The trial ended with, you should excuse the expression, a hung jury. There was then a second trial and Wilde was found guilty and sentenced to two years at hard labor. Apparently, the jury didn’t regard Wilde, who was in his mid-30s when he took up with Lord Douglas, as sufficiently avuncular to buy his old graybeard defense.

It’s strange from our vantage point to realize there was a time before same-sex marriages and gay pride parades when homosexuality was the love that dared not speak its name.

These days, it’s the love that never shuts up.

Copyright © 2008 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.

Benny B

  • Time Out
  • Getbig V
  • *
  • Posts: 12407
  • Ron = 'Princess L' & many other gimmicks - FACT!
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #261 on: June 30, 2008, 11:26:29 AM »
Quote
I realize that many people, after several years of unrelenting gay propaganda in the media, have been brain-washed into believing that to oppose same-sex marriages is to be the worst kind of bigot. They have cleverly insisted that it is akin to being opposed to bi-racial unions. That, of course, is sheer sophistry. What marriage of a man and a woman of different races is akin to is marriage between a man and a woman of different religions or different nationalities. Marriage between two men or two women, on the other hand, is the end result of political correctness carried to its ludicrous extreme.
;)
!

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63727
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #262 on: June 30, 2008, 11:43:39 AM »
Yep.  Great quote. 

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41015
  • one dwells in nirvana
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #263 on: June 30, 2008, 11:58:57 AM »
That's No Man, That's My Wife
Burt Prelutsky - townhall.com
Monday, June 30, 2008

I realize that many people, after several years of unrelenting gay propaganda in the media, have been brain-washed into believing that to oppose same-sex marriages is to be the worst kind of bigot. They have cleverly insisted that it is akin to being opposed to bi-racial unions. That, of course, is sheer sophistry. What marriage of a man and a woman of different races is akin to is marriage between a man and a woman of different religions or different nationalities. Marriage between two men or two women, on the other hand, is the end result of political correctness carried to its ludicrous extreme.

Copyright © 2008 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.



Not the worst kind of bigot - but still a bigot.

What exactly is the problem with gay marriage again?

Can someone who opposes it sum it up in a sentence or two and do it without conflating it with all other nonsense.

Let's even take it out of the US.

Gays can legally get married in Canada - tell me what harm it has caused



Colossus_500

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3993
  • Psalm 139
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #264 on: July 02, 2008, 02:35:57 PM »
Children in the 'gay marriage' crosshairs
Matt Barber

You've probably heard the relativist line that goes something like this: "Gay marriage won't hurt anyone. Live and let live, already!" Well, don't buy it for a minute.

With its recent 4-3 opinion – which arrogantly presumed to redefine the millennia-old definition of legitimate marriage – the California Supreme Court daftly divined that the framers of the California Constitution intended – all along, I guess – that Patrick Henry really had a constitutional right to "marry" Henry Patrick. In so doing, four black-robed Dr. Frankensteins have loosed that paradoxical abomination tagged "same-sex marriage" on the countryside.
 
Abomination, you say? Isn't that a bit strong?
 
Nope. God used it. And I'll give just one example of many as to why He did. Keep in mind, though: If California voters fail to pass a constitutional amendment in November to undo this extremist act of judicial social engineering, we can expect thousands more examples just like it.
 
Virginia resident Lisa Miller, mother of six-year-old Isabella Miller, was involved in homosexuality for a short time. Thankfully, she found freedom from the destructive "gay" lifestyle – as so many others have done – through a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and, along with Isabella, is now a Christian.
 
For the past five years or so, Lisa and Isabella have been trying to live their lives in peace at home in Virginia. But unfortunately, they've been unable to do so, as Lisa's dark past has come back to haunt them. They've been the target of a vicious legal attack by militant homosexual activists that places Vermont's civil union laws ("gay marriage" by another name) directly at odds with the Federal Defense of Marriage Act, Virginia's Marriage Affirmation Act, and the Virginia Constitution.
 
Outrageously, the Vermont Supreme Court ruled in March that Lisa must share custody of her own daughter with Janet Jenkins, a woman who was, for a brief time, Lisa's lesbian "civil partner." Jenkins is entirely unrelated to Isabella and, for the most part, is a total stranger to the little girl. Although Jenkins is neither a biological parent nor an adoptive parent, Vermont's highest court determined that – because of a brief "civil union" from a weekend jaunt to Vermont back in 2000 – Jenkins, who hadn't seen Isabella since she was little over a year old, must be granted "parental" rights and visitation.
 
Little Isabella – who is both terrified by this stranger and understandably confused by her bizarre lifestyle – has suffered tremendous emotional trauma as a result. There are even concerns about her physical safety.
 
But it gets much worse. Because Christianity is biblically incompatible with unrepentant homosexuality, and since Lisa teaches Isabella God's express design for human sexuality (one man, one woman within the bonds of marriage), Jenkins has claimed in the past that Lisa is an unfit parent. Precisely because Lisa is a Christian, Jenkins has essentially argued that she's not fit to raise her very own daughter.
 
But it gets worse yet. On June 18, in an act that can only be described as pure evil, Jenkins' attorneys filed a "Motion for Transfer of Both Sole Legal and Physical [Custody]" of Isabella to Janet Jenkins. Yes, you read that right. This unrelated, near-perfect stranger and her single-minded homosexual activist attorneys are trying to permanently rip this horrified child from her mother's loving embrace as a sacrifice to the gods of postmodern homo-fascism. Unfortunately, with the history of this Vermont court, the motion may well be granted.
 
Still, there is a silver lining to this tragic story. Attorneys with Liberty Counsel, the Christian civil liberties law firm representing Lisa and Isabella Miller, have filed an action in Virginia asking the commonwealth to respect its Marriage Affirmation Act, the federal DOMA and Virginia's constitution, which stipulates that Virginia "shall not create or recognize" "civil unions" or "same-sex marriages" from other states, nor can it recognize rulings which stem from such "unions" (such as Vermont's custody ruling).
 
This pits the laws of Vermont directly against the laws of Virginia. If Virginia does the right thing and tells Vermont to keep its "civil unions" to itself, the U.S. Supreme Court will ultimately have to resolve the conflict.
 
But on a larger scale, Lisa and Isabella's tragic story demonstrates that it's all too often children who are ultimately victimized by state-recognized immorality. It's the children who suffer when adults selfishly depart from God's intended design for human sexuality and marriage – as reaffirmed by Christ's teachings in the New Testament – and enter into counterfeit homosexual "civil unions" or "same-sex marriages."
 
So-called same-sex "parenting" willfully deprives a child of his or her mother or father and is fundamentally immoral for that reason (among others). We know conclusively that it's best for children to be raised with both mom and dad. It's not always possible, but even with single parenting, there's always the chance that the other half – an adoptive mother or father – will enter the picture.
 
We need only rely on common sense, but the preponderance of research has proven that a mother and a father each possess unique qualities central in helping to formulate who a child ultimately becomes.
 
While standing before the Courts of Justice Committee of the Virginia Senate in 2005, Robert Knight, former director of the Culture and Family Institute, testified to the following:

    "In 2001, a team of pro-homosexual researchers from the University of Southern California did a meta-analysis of 'gay parenting' studies and published a refreshingly honest article in American Sociological Review, '(How) Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter?'
     
    "The authors concluded that, yes, studies show that girls are more likely to 'be sexually adventurous and less chaste,' including being more likely to try lesbianism, and that boys are more likely to have 'fluid' conceptions of gender roles, and that researchers should stop trying to cover this up in the hopes of pursuing a pro-homosexual agenda. The researchers said, in effect: Some of the kids are more likely to turn out gay or bisexual, but so what?"


Ultimately, though, it all boils down to simple biology. It's impossible for a "gay" pair to have a child without utilizing the mechanics of natural procreation. They have no choice but to bring an opposite-sex third party into the picture. A child like Isabella can't really have two mommies (or three mommies; Jenkins is reportedly in a new lesbian relationship). She can have only one mommy and a daddy (who in this case was an anonymous sperm donor).
 
Jenkins and others like her are laboring under an unfortunate delusion. They're not mom, mommy, mother or mum. They're not even "step-mom." The closest thing they are to family is, well, kind of like mommy's fun friend who made you call her Aunt Meg.
 
But none of this matters to today's postmodern moral relativists. They have a specific agenda in mind: to completely redefine reality-based marriage and family into oblivion...no matter who gets hurt in the process.
 
And Lisa and little Isabella are just two of the latest victims of that agenda. Unfortunately, if this perversion of justice in California is left to stand, and if Virginia chooses not to rebuff Vermont's outrageous ruling in the Lisa Miller case, there will be many, many more.

Deedee

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5067
  • They sicken of the calm, who knew the storm.
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #265 on: July 02, 2008, 07:55:39 PM »
That story was in the Washington Post awhile ago, but the details were slightly different.

I guess if gay people marry, they'll be open to the same crap hetero people deal with when a relationship goes sour and they have a child.

It's a good thing that Lisa Miller just happened to find God when her legal bills started to pile up. It was a gift from heaven.  :)

But the real moral of their story is, whether straight or gay, don't marry someone you met at an AA meeting.

Deicide

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22921
  • Reapers...
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #266 on: July 02, 2008, 08:02:24 PM »
That story was in the Washington Post awhile ago, but the details were slightly different.

I guess if gay people marry, they'll be open to the same crap hetero people deal with when a relationship goes sour and they have a child.

It's a good thing that Lisa Miller just happened to find God when her legal bills started to pile up. It was a gift from heaven.  :)

But the real moral of the story is, whether straight or gay, don't marry someone you met at an AA meeting.

The real moral is never to marry in the first place...
I hate the State.

Deedee

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5067
  • They sicken of the calm, who knew the storm.
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #267 on: July 02, 2008, 08:19:31 PM »
The real moral is never to marry in the first place...

Not everyone wants to raise illegitimate children for one thing. Besides, lots of people actually flourish with a marriage partner they love and cherish.

Have you ever seen My Dinner With Andre?  He had very thoughtful ideas about the meaning of marriage and monogomy.

BayGBM

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19432
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #268 on: July 04, 2008, 06:47:28 AM »
Gay-Marriage Opponents To Boycott McDonald's
By Frank Ahrens, Washington Post Staff Writer


A group that opposes same-sex marriage has called for a boycott of McDonald's, saying the fast-food giant has refused "to stay neutral in the cultural war over homosexuality."

The American Family Association (AFA) launched the boycott yesterday because McDonald's joined the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce several months ago and placed an executive on the group's board of directors, in addition to donating to the chamber.

The association asked McDonald's to remove itself from the chamber but the burger-maker declined, leading to the boycott. "We're saying that there are people who support AFA who don't appreciate their dollars from the hamburgers they bought being put into an organization that's going to fight against the values they believe in," Tim Wildmon, the association's president, said yesterday.

"Hatred has no place in our culture," McDonald's USA spokesman Bill Whitman said. "That includes McDonald's, and we stand by and support our people to live and work in a society free of discrimination and harassment."

In March, the association ended a two-year boycott of Ford after the automaker largely stopped advertising its Volvo, Jaguar and Land Rover vehicles in the gay media. The association also has boycotted retailer Target for substituting "holiday" for "Christmas" in its advertising and the Walt Disney Co. for its "embrace of the homosexual lifestyle."

Corporations increasingly are courting the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender markets for their buying power and trendsetting value. This translates into corporate sponsorships of events, such as gay pride festivals, and advertising targeted at nonheterosexual consumers.

As a result, faith-based groups such as the AFA are following the example practiced for years by the secular left, which has targeted corporations for their policies on environmental, workplace and human-rights issues.

The AFA "exists to motivate and equip citizens to change the culture to reflect Biblical truth and traditional family values," the group's Web site reads. The organization, based in Tupelo, Miss., has 2.8 million people on its e-mail alert system and sends its monthly magazine to 170,000 people, Wildmon said.

Wildmon said his group wants McDonald's to give up its membership in the chamber, which is located in Dupont Circle, next year and to remove its logo from the chamber's Web site. "I think the request we're making is more than fair," Wildmon said.

A call to chamber president Justin G. Nelson was not returned.

Wildmon said that his group would not object if McDonald's gave money to a group that, for instance, assisted gay HIV/AIDS patients. "You wouldn't hear from us," he said. "That would be classified as humanitarian aid." The AFA has planned no on-site protests, Wildmon said.

In a May 29 letter to Wildmon, McDonald's global chief diversity officer Pat Harris wrote: "McDonald's is associated with countless local and national affinity groups. . . . We have a well-established and proud heritage of associating with individuals and organizations that share the belief that every person has the right to live and work in a community free of discrimination."

On its new Web site, BoycottMcDonalds.com, AFA says the boycott is not about McDonald's hiring or serving gay patrons or its treatment of gay employees. Instead, the boycott is motivated by McDonald's throwing "the full weight of their corporation to promoting the homosexual agenda, including homosexual marriage."

Ascertaining the impact of such boycotts can be tricky. Ford's monthly sales slumped at times during the AFA boycott, but so did those of General Motors, DaimlerChrysler and Toyota. The boycott coincided with an industry-wide slide in sales of SUVs and trucks, Ford's core products. "It is so difficult to sort out what cause and effect is today with the number of variables that are in play," said David E. Cole, chairman of the Center for Automotive Research.

Ford, which has sold its Jaguar and Land Rover lines, said gay-oriented ads constituted a small slice of its marketing budget. When cuts were made, mainstream-market advertising was reduced, while niche advertising was all but eliminated.

In a March statement, the company said: "Ford will continue to market its products widely to attract as many customers as possible and make charitable contributions to strengthen communities to the extent business conditions allow. Difficult business conditions in recent years have reduced our overall spending across the board."

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63727
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #269 on: July 04, 2008, 11:36:37 AM »
Children in the 'gay marriage' crosshairs
Matt Barber

You've probably heard the relativist line that goes something like this: "Gay marriage won't hurt anyone. Live and let live, already!" Well, don't buy it for a minute.

With its recent 4-3 opinion – which arrogantly presumed to redefine the millennia-old definition of legitimate marriage – the California Supreme Court daftly divined that the framers of the California Constitution intended – all along, I guess – that Patrick Henry really had a constitutional right to "marry" Henry Patrick. In so doing, four black-robed Dr. Frankensteins have loosed that paradoxical abomination tagged "same-sex marriage" on the countryside.
 
Abomination, you say? Isn't that a bit strong?
 
Nope. God used it. And I'll give just one example of many as to why He did. Keep in mind, though: If California voters fail to pass a constitutional amendment in November to undo this extremist act of judicial social engineering, we can expect thousands more examples just like it.
 
Virginia resident Lisa Miller, mother of six-year-old Isabella Miller, was involved in homosexuality for a short time. Thankfully, she found freedom from the destructive "gay" lifestyle – as so many others have done – through a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and, along with Isabella, is now a Christian.
 
For the past five years or so, Lisa and Isabella have been trying to live their lives in peace at home in Virginia. But unfortunately, they've been unable to do so, as Lisa's dark past has come back to haunt them. They've been the target of a vicious legal attack by militant homosexual activists that places Vermont's civil union laws ("gay marriage" by another name) directly at odds with the Federal Defense of Marriage Act, Virginia's Marriage Affirmation Act, and the Virginia Constitution.
 
Outrageously, the Vermont Supreme Court ruled in March that Lisa must share custody of her own daughter with Janet Jenkins, a woman who was, for a brief time, Lisa's lesbian "civil partner." Jenkins is entirely unrelated to Isabella and, for the most part, is a total stranger to the little girl. Although Jenkins is neither a biological parent nor an adoptive parent, Vermont's highest court determined that – because of a brief "civil union" from a weekend jaunt to Vermont back in 2000 – Jenkins, who hadn't seen Isabella since she was little over a year old, must be granted "parental" rights and visitation.
 
Little Isabella – who is both terrified by this stranger and understandably confused by her bizarre lifestyle – has suffered tremendous emotional trauma as a result. There are even concerns about her physical safety.
 
But it gets much worse. Because Christianity is biblically incompatible with unrepentant homosexuality, and since Lisa teaches Isabella God's express design for human sexuality (one man, one woman within the bonds of marriage), Jenkins has claimed in the past that Lisa is an unfit parent. Precisely because Lisa is a Christian, Jenkins has essentially argued that she's not fit to raise her very own daughter.
 
But it gets worse yet. On June 18, in an act that can only be described as pure evil, Jenkins' attorneys filed a "Motion for Transfer of Both Sole Legal and Physical [Custody]" of Isabella to Janet Jenkins. Yes, you read that right. This unrelated, near-perfect stranger and her single-minded homosexual activist attorneys are trying to permanently rip this horrified child from her mother's loving embrace as a sacrifice to the gods of postmodern homo-fascism. Unfortunately, with the history of this Vermont court, the motion may well be granted.
 
Still, there is a silver lining to this tragic story. Attorneys with Liberty Counsel, the Christian civil liberties law firm representing Lisa and Isabella Miller, have filed an action in Virginia asking the commonwealth to respect its Marriage Affirmation Act, the federal DOMA and Virginia's constitution, which stipulates that Virginia "shall not create or recognize" "civil unions" or "same-sex marriages" from other states, nor can it recognize rulings which stem from such "unions" (such as Vermont's custody ruling).
 
This pits the laws of Vermont directly against the laws of Virginia. If Virginia does the right thing and tells Vermont to keep its "civil unions" to itself, the U.S. Supreme Court will ultimately have to resolve the conflict.
 
But on a larger scale, Lisa and Isabella's tragic story demonstrates that it's all too often children who are ultimately victimized by state-recognized immorality. It's the children who suffer when adults selfishly depart from God's intended design for human sexuality and marriage – as reaffirmed by Christ's teachings in the New Testament – and enter into counterfeit homosexual "civil unions" or "same-sex marriages."
 
So-called same-sex "parenting" willfully deprives a child of his or her mother or father and is fundamentally immoral for that reason (among others). We know conclusively that it's best for children to be raised with both mom and dad. It's not always possible, but even with single parenting, there's always the chance that the other half – an adoptive mother or father – will enter the picture.
 
We need only rely on common sense, but the preponderance of research has proven that a mother and a father each possess unique qualities central in helping to formulate who a child ultimately becomes.
 
While standing before the Courts of Justice Committee of the Virginia Senate in 2005, Robert Knight, former director of the Culture and Family Institute, testified to the following:

    "In 2001, a team of pro-homosexual researchers from the University of Southern California did a meta-analysis of 'gay parenting' studies and published a refreshingly honest article in American Sociological Review, '(How) Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter?'
     
    "The authors concluded that, yes, studies show that girls are more likely to 'be sexually adventurous and less chaste,' including being more likely to try lesbianism, and that boys are more likely to have 'fluid' conceptions of gender roles, and that researchers should stop trying to cover this up in the hopes of pursuing a pro-homosexual agenda. The researchers said, in effect: Some of the kids are more likely to turn out gay or bisexual, but so what?"


Ultimately, though, it all boils down to simple biology. It's impossible for a "gay" pair to have a child without utilizing the mechanics of natural procreation. They have no choice but to bring an opposite-sex third party into the picture. A child like Isabella can't really have two mommies (or three mommies; Jenkins is reportedly in a new lesbian relationship). She can have only one mommy and a daddy (who in this case was an anonymous sperm donor).
 
Jenkins and others like her are laboring under an unfortunate delusion. They're not mom, mommy, mother or mum. They're not even "step-mom." The closest thing they are to family is, well, kind of like mommy's fun friend who made you call her Aunt Meg.
 
But none of this matters to today's postmodern moral relativists. They have a specific agenda in mind: to completely redefine reality-based marriage and family into oblivion...no matter who gets hurt in the process.
 
And Lisa and little Isabella are just two of the latest victims of that agenda. Unfortunately, if this perversion of justice in California is left to stand, and if Virginia chooses not to rebuff Vermont's outrageous ruling in the Lisa Miller case, there will be many, many more.

This is terrible.  Poor kid.  I hope the courts do the right thing. 

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41015
  • one dwells in nirvana
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #270 on: July 04, 2008, 12:16:22 PM »
Both women seem equally wacko to me


Benny B

  • Time Out
  • Getbig V
  • *
  • Posts: 12407
  • Ron = 'Princess L' & many other gimmicks - FACT!
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #271 on: July 04, 2008, 02:31:33 PM »
Gay-Marriage Opponents To Boycott McDonald's
By Frank Ahrens, Washington Post Staff Writer


A group that opposes same-sex marriage has called for a boycott of McDonald's, saying the fast-food giant has refused "to stay neutral in the cultural war over homosexuality."

The American Family Association (AFA) launched the boycott yesterday because McDonald's joined the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce several months ago and placed an executive on the group's board of directors, in addition to donating to the chamber.

The association asked McDonald's to remove itself from the chamber but the burger-maker declined, leading to the boycott. "We're saying that there are people who support AFA who don't appreciate their dollars from the hamburgers they bought being put into an organization that's going to fight against the values they believe in," Tim Wildmon, the association's president, said yesterday.

"Hatred has no place in our culture," McDonald's USA spokesman Bill Whitman said. "That includes McDonald's, and we stand by and support our people to live and work in a society free of discrimination and harassment."

In March, the association ended a two-year boycott of Ford after the automaker largely stopped advertising its Volvo, Jaguar and Land Rover vehicles in the gay media. The association also has boycotted retailer Target for substituting "holiday" for "Christmas" in its advertising and the Walt Disney Co. for its "embrace of the homosexual lifestyle."

Corporations increasingly are courting the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender markets for their buying power and trendsetting value. This translates into corporate sponsorships of events, such as gay pride festivals, and advertising targeted at nonheterosexual consumers.

As a result, faith-based groups such as the AFA are following the example practiced for years by the secular left, which has targeted corporations for their policies on environmental, workplace and human-rights issues.

The AFA "exists to motivate and equip citizens to change the culture to reflect Biblical truth and traditional family values," the group's Web site reads. The organization, based in Tupelo, Miss., has 2.8 million people on its e-mail alert system and sends its monthly magazine to 170,000 people, Wildmon said.

Wildmon said his group wants McDonald's to give up its membership in the chamber, which is located in Dupont Circle, next year and to remove its logo from the chamber's Web site. "I think the request we're making is more than fair," Wildmon said.

A call to chamber president Justin G. Nelson was not returned.

Wildmon said that his group would not object if McDonald's gave money to a group that, for instance, assisted gay HIV/AIDS patients. "You wouldn't hear from us," he said. "That would be classified as humanitarian aid." The AFA has planned no on-site protests, Wildmon said.

In a May 29 letter to Wildmon, McDonald's global chief diversity officer Pat Harris wrote: "McDonald's is associated with countless local and national affinity groups. . . . We have a well-established and proud heritage of associating with individuals and organizations that share the belief that every person has the right to live and work in a community free of discrimination."

On its new Web site, BoycottMcDonalds.com, AFA says the boycott is not about McDonald's hiring or serving gay patrons or its treatment of gay employees. Instead, the boycott is motivated by McDonald's throwing "the full weight of their corporation to promoting the homosexual agenda, including homosexual marriage."

Ascertaining the impact of such boycotts can be tricky. Ford's monthly sales slumped at times during the AFA boycott, but so did those of General Motors, DaimlerChrysler and Toyota. The boycott coincided with an industry-wide slide in sales of SUVs and trucks, Ford's core products. "It is so difficult to sort out what cause and effect is today with the number of variables that are in play," said David E. Cole, chairman of the Center for Automotive Research.

Ford, which has sold its Jaguar and Land Rover lines, said gay-oriented ads constituted a small slice of its marketing budget. When cuts were made, mainstream-market advertising was reduced, while niche advertising was all but eliminated.

In a March statement, the company said: "Ford will continue to market its products widely to attract as many customers as possible and make charitable contributions to strengthen communities to the extent business conditions allow. Difficult business conditions in recent years have reduced our overall spending across the board."

Boycott McHomo burgers!  :D
!

Colossus_500

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3993
  • Psalm 139
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #272 on: July 17, 2008, 12:24:57 PM »
Marriage amendment to stay on Calif. ballot
Jeff Johnson - OneNewsNow - 7/17/2008
www.onenewsnow.com

The California Supreme Court has ruled that the marriage protection amendment will remain on the state's November ballot.

Following the California's Supreme Court ruling that legalized homosexual "marriage" in that state, activists sued to keep the marriage protection amendment off the November ballot. However, they failed in their attempt on Wednesday when the court ruled in favor of Proposition 8's inclusion on the ballot.

Glen Lavy with the Alliance Defense Fund says the homosexual activists trying to keep the amendment off the ballot showed their contempt for the will of the people and the democratic process by filing such a baseless lawsuit. "I would have been shocked if the court had prevented this amendment from going on the ballot," he comments. "The lawsuit was frivolous. There was no basis for the arguments. It would have been ridiculous for the court to rule in their favor," Lavy contends.
 
Matt Staver of Liberty Counsel represented the Campaign for California Families and argued in defense of the amendment. "[We] really didn't know which way the court was going [on this particular issue]," he says. "But the good news is they've rejected the argument by same-sex advocates to remove the marriage amendment from the ballot.

"Now the secretary of state is free to print all the information to notify the voters and, in fact, the voters will speak in November," the Liberty Counsel founder continues. "And when they speak, I believe they'll pass these 14 words. These 14 words will overrule the 4-to-3 decision of the California Supreme Court and restore marriage as the union of one man and one woman."
 
Those 14 words are: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." According to Staver, passage of Prop. 8 would invalidate all same-sex marriages performed in California prior to the enactment of the amendment.


Colossus_500

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3993
  • Psalm 139
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #273 on: July 30, 2008, 06:51:47 AM »
Opponents of gay marriage say they'll sue over changed wording in Proposition 8

After a tweak by the state attorney general's office, the initiative now seeks to 'eliminate the right' of same-sex couples to marry, wording that the measure's proponents say could prejudice voters.

By Jessica Garrison
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
latimes.com
July 29, 2008

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."

Proponents of the measure said they want voters to see ballot language similar to what was on the petitions that began circulating last fall.

"This is a complete about-face from the ballot title that was assigned" when the measure was being circulated for signatures, Kerns said.

On the other side, Steve Smith, campaign manager for No on Proposition 8, applauded the language change.

"What Proposition 8 would do is eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry, which is exactly what the attorney general put in the title of the measure," he said. "It will be very difficult for them to win the case."

Political analysts on both sides suggest that the language change will make passage of the initiative more difficult, noting that voters might be more reluctant to pass a measure that makes clear it is taking away existing rights.

The dust-up reflects the fierce battle being waged over the question of same-sex marriage in California, the most closely-watched social issue that will appear on the November ballot.

And it has raised suspicion in some circles that Brown, a possible candidate for governor in 2010, was influenced by politics.

"He is delivering something . . . that is very important to the gay community, and that is a title and summary that is more likely to lead you to vote 'No,' " said political analyst Tony Quinn.

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, who became a hero to the gay and lesbian community in 2004 when he officiated same-sex marriages that were later invalidated by the state, is also exploring a run for governor.

Quinn added that language changes that substantive are "highly unusual."

Gareth Lacy, a spokesman for the attorney general, denied that there was any political motivation for the move.

Instead, he said, the change was necessary because of the dramatic turn of events that have taken place since the petitions were circulated: namely that the California Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage and thousands of gay couples have since wed.

"The title and summary accurately reflect the measure," Lacy said.

He noted that language in titles and summaries often changes between the time a measure is circulated for signatures and when it appears on the ballot.

In another change, the revised language predicts a loss to state and local governments of tens of millions of dollars in sales tax revenues over the next few years if the measure passes. But the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst's Office said that in the long run there would "likely be little fiscal impact."

MCWAY

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19253
  • Getbig!
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #274 on: August 02, 2008, 01:59:50 PM »
Opponents of gay marriage say they'll sue over changed wording in Proposition 8

After a tweak by the state attorney general's office, the initiative now seeks to 'eliminate the right' of same-sex couples to marry, wording that the measure's proponents say could prejudice voters.

By Jessica Garrison
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
latimes.com
July 29, 2008

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."

Proponents of the measure said they want voters to see ballot language similar to what was on the petitions that began circulating last fall.

"This is a complete about-face from the ballot title that was assigned" when the measure was being circulated for signatures, Kerns said.

On the other side, Steve Smith, campaign manager for No on Proposition 8, applauded the language change.

"What Proposition 8 would do is eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry, which is exactly what the attorney general put in the title of the measure," he said. "It will be very difficult for them to win the case."

Political analysts on both sides suggest that the language change will make passage of the initiative more difficult, noting that voters might be more reluctant to pass a measure that makes clear it is taking away existing rights.

The dust-up reflects the fierce battle being waged over the question of same-sex marriage in California, the most closely-watched social issue that will appear on the November ballot.

And it has raised suspicion in some circles that Brown, a possible candidate for governor in 2010, was influenced by politics.

"He is delivering something . . . that is very important to the gay community, and that is a title and summary that is more likely to lead you to vote 'No,' " said political analyst Tony Quinn.

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, who became a hero to the gay and lesbian community in 2004 when he officiated same-sex marriages that were later invalidated by the state, is also exploring a run for governor.

Quinn added that language changes that substantive are "highly unusual."

Gareth Lacy, a spokesman for the attorney general, denied that there was any political motivation for the move.

Instead, he said, the change was necessary because of the dramatic turn of events that have taken place since the petitions were circulated: namely that the California Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage and thousands of gay couples have since wed.

"The title and summary accurately reflect the measure," Lacy said.

He noted that language in titles and summaries often changes between the time a measure is circulated for signatures and when it appears on the ballot.

In another change, the revised language predicts a loss to state and local governments of tens of millions of dollars in sales tax revenues over the next few years if the measure passes. But the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst's Office said that in the long run there would "likely be little fiscal impact."

Since the AG can't stop the amendment from hitting the ballot, he's trying to stack the deck in favor of the "No" votes. He's supposed to stay impartial, put the amendment on the ballot as is.

It's on those who support gay "marriage" to make their case to the people. In my view, the key to this amendment will be, as it was with Prop. 22, rallying the citizens OUTSIDE the L.A. and San Francisco areas. In 2000, when Prop. 22 hit ballot, those two areas made up the lion's share of the "No" votes.

It was the other 52 counties in California that carried the mail and got Prop. 22 passed. This will undoubtedly require a major grass-roots rally from churches and other institutions that are in favor of this amendment. If they can get the voters out in mass, then this amendment will pass.

Keep in mind that this would not be the first time the Cali. Supreme Court has ruled something "unconstitutional", only to have the people vote (via amendment) to override that ruling. In 1972, the court ruled the death penalty was unconstitutional. Just a few months later, the people amended the state constitution, legalizing the death penalty, once again.