Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

California Initiative Proposes Abolishing All Marriage from Law
LifeSiteNews ^ | 3/11/09 | Kathleen Gilbert

Posted on 03/11/2009 4:13:40 PM PDT by wagglebee

SACRAMENTO, March 11, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - California same-sex "marriage" supporters are collecting signatures to support a ballot initiative that would remove civil marriage from California law entirely, as well as the provision codifying marriage as between a man and a woman.

The "Domestic Partnership Initiative" proposes to categorize all unions simply as "domestic partnerships," while retaining all the rights of marriage for heterosexual couples, and extending them to homosexual couples. According to the initiative's summary, "Legally speaking, 'Marriage' itself would become a social ceremony, recognized by only non-governmental institutions."

State Attorney General Jerry Brown submitted the official title and summary for the measure on Monday, about one week after opening arguments in lawsuits challenging Proposition 8, California's true marriage amendment.

The new initiative arose after it was widely acknowledged that judges appeared unconvinced that the state Supreme Court should overturn the voter-approved amendment.

Kaelan Housewright and Ali Shams, the two college students behind the initiative, must collect the signatures of about 700,000 registered voters by August 6 in order for it to make the ballot.

"[The initiative] is more like a compromise that mediates the two sides," said Shams. "This isn't a gay rights campaign, it's an equal rights campaign. You can see it as an attack on marriage, but you can also see it as protecting marriage because we are taking it out of the battlefield."

Frank Schubert, the pro-Proposition 8 campaign manager, told the San Francisco Gate that eliminating all types of marriage was unlikely to gain broad public support and called it "fundamentally a dumb idea."


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Extended News; Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy; Politics/Elections; US: California
KEYWORDS: 2008election; california; gaystapo; homosexualagenda; homosexualmarriage; moralabsolutes; moralrelativism; proposition8; queerlybeloved; samesexmarriage; samsexmarriage; traditionalmarriage
Sodom and Gomorrah had nothing on California.
1 posted on 03/11/2009 4:13:40 PM PDT by wagglebee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: 185JHP; 230FMJ; 50mm; 69ConvertibleFirebird; AFA-Michigan; Abathar; Agitate; Aleighanne; ...
Homosexual Agenda and Moral Absolutes Ping!

Freepmail wagglebee or DirtyHarryY2K to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda or moral absolutes ping list.

FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search
[ Add keyword homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list ]

FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]


2 posted on 03/11/2009 4:14:04 PM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
Sodom and Gomorrah had nothing on California.

Boy. Ain't that the truth?!!

3 posted on 03/11/2009 4:16:15 PM PDT by GOP Poet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Once they eliminate all marriage in California, then all the children born there will be bastards.


4 posted on 03/11/2009 4:16:29 PM PDT by reg45 (Be calm everyone. The idiot child is in charge!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
I was married before God and man. Man can do what he wants but in the end God and I know what commitment my husband and I made to one another in front of the Lord, and our community.
5 posted on 03/11/2009 4:18:30 PM PDT by GOP Poet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #6 Removed by Moderator

To: wagglebee
Big Love.
7 posted on 03/11/2009 4:19:34 PM PDT by Mojave (Don't blame me. I voted for McClintock.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
Gee that will do wonders with official filings such as tax returns, wills, insurance, etc. Many may not recognize such a distinction.

Question, if I am married and then I become forced to be in a relationship, does that mean I am no longer legally married? So no divorce? No payment to the EX, because we are not married and we were not divorced.

8 posted on 03/11/2009 4:21:23 PM PDT by Lockbox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Regardless if they succeed or fail, this is going to be funny. I’ll laugh if they fail, and I’ll laugh if they succeed.


9 posted on 03/11/2009 4:22:23 PM PDT by mamelukesabre
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

The article said — “SACRAMENTO, March 11, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - California same-sex “marriage” supporters are collecting signatures to support a ballot initiative that would remove civil marriage from California law entirely, as well as the provision codifying marriage as between a man and a woman.”

Ummm..., next, they are going to legally and officially label Homo Sapiens as the Genus “Gorilla”. That should solve a lot of stuff regarding sex...


10 posted on 03/11/2009 4:22:24 PM PDT by Star Traveler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GOP Poet

“This isn’t a gay rights campaign, it’s an equal rights campaign. You can see it as an attack on marriage, but you can also see it as protecting marriage because we are taking it out of the battlefield.”

Marriage shouldn’t be taken off the battlefield. EVERYONE should step up, and take a stand on this defining issue. Are you for protecting G-dly values, or are you for desecrating G-d and his word. A majority of Californians agree with the former, and the left can’t stand it. So their new goal is to isolate and polarize marriage to those evil Republicans.

Marriage isn’t just for Republicans and conservatives and Christians and Jews. Marriage is for ALL people, and to hell with what the radicals think!


11 posted on 03/11/2009 4:30:17 PM PDT by Jeb21
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
remove civil marriage from California law entirely

So how is that not taking rights away?

Brown is a complete idiot.

12 posted on 03/11/2009 4:40:35 PM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
They want SPECIAL rights not equal rights. They are as phony as Obama is on economics.
13 posted on 03/11/2009 4:43:56 PM PDT by VRWC For Truth (Throw the bums out who vote yes on the bail out)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VRWC For Truth
They want SPECIAL rights not equal rights. They are as phony as Obama is on economics.

Exactly, homosexuals already have EXACTLY the same marital rights as anyone else.

14 posted on 03/11/2009 4:48:02 PM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
California same-sex "marriage" supporters are collecting signatures to support a ballot initiative that would remove civil marriage from California law entirely

There is a seriously bright side to this (one that the queers won't recognize). Allow me to elucidate:

Right now, marriages performed in churches or marriages performed by clergy outside of a church setting are recognized by the state and a clergyman can sign the marriage license (at least in most places that I am aware of). That makes the clergyman an agent of the state.

That one fact provides a little crack in the door that the queers could use to take the Church (or some protestant denomination) to court to claim discrimination if the clergy refused to "marry" a homosexual couple. You might say "what about the first amendment?" The way the courts are starting to act, the bill of rights is only applicable if they feel like it.

If there is no legal concept of marriage any more, then the religious sacrament should have no significance in a court of law either way and therefore, you're not infringing upon a queer's rights if you refuse to provide a religious service for them (in accordance with applicable denominational rules).

As Catholics, there won't really be any difference to us one way or the other (in fact, it might be a little less confusing than now, in regards to irregular but valid marriages). The interesting part will be a question about Protestants, since they consider a marriage in front of a JP to be legitimate (as far as I know...correct me if I'm wrong). Will they accept a signed domestic contract in front of a notary public to be the same as marriage?

The bad news is that the queers are doing this to support their agenda. IMHO, there is a seriously silver lining to this dark cloud.

15 posted on 03/11/2009 4:49:56 PM PDT by markomalley (Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

When’s the next edition of the Newspeak dictionary coming out? I like to keep up with the words we’re not allowed to say anymore, like “husband”, “wife”, “marriage”....


16 posted on 03/11/2009 4:54:32 PM PDT by Argus (We've gone downtown to Clown Town, and that's where we'll be living from now on..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reg45
The "Domestic Partnership Initiative" proposes to categorize all unions simply as "domestic partnerships," ....

Once they eliminate all marriage in California, then all the children born there will be bastards.

On the other hand .... Let's go down the "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and render unto God the things that are God's" road.

"Domestic Partnership" deals with the State. It has to do with property rights, inheritance rights, tax policy, alimony and the "when you break up the other one takes half of your stuff" laws. That is Caesar's business.

"Marriage" deals with "holy matrimony" which is a religious issue. That is God's business.

Under such a system, the State establishes "Domestic Partnerships" and the Churches and God establish "Marriage".

A gay couple that gets the State to declare a "Domestic Partnership" for property rights purposes may not be religious and may not have a Church declare them "married". They would have a legal Partnership but not a Marriage.

A straight couple married in a Church would have BOTH a Partnership for legal purposes and a Marriage for religious purposes.

A gay couple that had a legal Partnership and was "married" by a Church that believed in gay marriages would be "married" in the eyes of their Church but "not married" in the eyes of the Churches that do not recognize gay marriage.

Whether a child is born "outside of marriage", depends on the couple's religious agreement before God, not the couple's legal agreement before Caesar.

17 posted on 03/11/2009 5:00:29 PM PDT by Polybius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: GOP Poet

Amen.

I don’t need any blessing or stamp of official approval from any gov’t on my marriage.

My marriage exists between me and my wife only with the blessing of God and my family and friends.

So, yes, it would be irrelevant to me if anything like this should pass.


18 posted on 03/11/2009 5:18:35 PM PDT by AlmaKing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Lockbox
Question, if I am married and then I become forced to be in a relationship, does that mean I am no longer legally married? So no divorce? No payment to the EX, because we are not married and we were not divorced

See Post 17.

All the issues you raised about civil laws having to do with divorce, and alimony and with your ex keeping half of your stuff have to do with Caesar's rules which is what the Partnership laws deal with.

19 posted on 03/11/2009 5:26:44 PM PDT by Polybius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: AlmaKing
So, yes, it would be irrelevant to me if anything like this should pass.

Any advance of a gay agenda will become relevant to you

20 posted on 03/11/2009 5:39:18 PM PDT by paul51 (11 September 2001 - Never forget (July 4, 2009 see you there))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Judging by the raw statistics, I’d say that formal lifetime marriage is a dying deal anyway. More than half end in divorce, and a good percentage of the remaining one are less than blissful, according to my personal observations.

It almost takes being a stuntman to want to get married...


21 posted on 03/11/2009 5:45:36 PM PDT by qwertypie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Yeah, like all the real married people will go along with this.


22 posted on 03/11/2009 5:50:28 PM PDT by Secret Agent Man (I'd like to tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Morgana
they hate themselves so much, that they will try to kill marriage unless they can pervert it to their own liking, that along with the Church. they will burn in hellfire for this.
23 posted on 03/11/2009 5:59:58 PM PDT by Chode (American Hedonist - Obama is basically Jim Jones with a teleprompter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
If they can't destroy marriage by redefining its meaning, they want to take it away from us as revenge. Real brilliant move on the part of the Queerly Beloved!

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

24 posted on 03/11/2009 6:14:10 PM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Will these damn queers ever stop?


25 posted on 03/11/2009 6:47:00 PM PDT by biff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Since marriage is a sacrament of the Church in reality its not the states role to define it anyway.


26 posted on 03/11/2009 7:03:22 PM PDT by lucias_clay (Its times like this I'm glad I'm a whig.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
... eliminating all types of marriage was unlikely to gain broad public support and called it "fundamentally a dumb idea."

That has to the the understatement of the century.

27 posted on 03/11/2009 7:51:26 PM PDT by fwdude ("...a 'centrist' ... has few principles - and those are negotiable." - Don Feder)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: qwertypie

I don’t buy that stat about 50% ending on divorce.

Don’t get me wrong. I believe that half of all marriages don’t make it, but the implication is that half of all *first* marriages are doomed.

My own mother had three husbands. So that’s three first-time marriages by other people that make it so the statistic balances out. (Two of her ex-husbands each had three failed marriages, as well.)

My MIL and FIL are both on their second marriages. So they keep the numbers level.

My neighbor’s on hubby #5. So there’s 5 first-time marriages who “death til they part”.

There are many who’s first marriages fail and who never try again. That means that for every one of them, there’s a marriage that goes the distance.

Many, MANY people don’t get it right the first time, but do the second. (Older, wiser, more experienced, make a better choice for a mate, etc) They, too, keep the numbers at the 50% mark and end up very happy.

The odds of a first marriage making it is much better than implied by the statistic.


28 posted on 03/11/2009 8:40:53 PM PDT by Marie ("When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: lucias_clay
Since marriage is a sacrament of the Church in reality its not the states role to define it anyway.

I hate to admit it, but I agree with you.

A part of me would be just fine with this bill, but another part of me is screaming a warning that this will continue the undermining of the institution of marriage... possibly pushing it off a cliff.

There's something about saying, "I'd like you to meet my husband," that, "I'd like you to meet my domestic partner," just doesn't do.

29 posted on 03/11/2009 8:44:59 PM PDT by Marie ("When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: lucias_clay

No it doesn’t belong in the realm of the state, but the state should support it.

The reason is because the family is man’s first government. This is where we begin to respect authority. The state should strongly support it, not promote anarchy.


30 posted on 03/11/2009 9:13:20 PM PDT by I got the rope
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

These Califags are out of control.


31 posted on 03/12/2009 12:34:07 AM PDT by libh8er
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Yes. If it passes, a bright line will be drawn between serious Catholics who live by their religion first, and by the laws of the state incidentally. That would be good for Catholicism and by the same token, good for all fundamentalist (small “f”: the Eastern Orthodox, conservative Protestant, Muslim, orthodox Jews) religions.

However, it is horrible public policy and should be opposed by anyone who wants to preserve the American system of civil government. Along with Roe v. Wade, that will be another change in the American jurisprudence that delegitimizes the government.


32 posted on 03/12/2009 8:40:31 AM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Salvation; narses; SMEDLEYBUTLER; redhead; Notwithstanding; nickcarraway; Romulus; ...
Catholic Ping
Please freepmail me if you want on/off this list


33 posted on 03/12/2009 10:13:58 AM PDT by NYer ("Run from places of sin as from a plague." - St. John Climacus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Exactly. Nobody is any more or less married because gubberment says so. I don’t think gubberment involvement in marriage has been very good for the ol’ institution at all. Like most things where gubberment gets involved, it will eventually mess up and put forth impossibilities like “gay mariage”.

Freegards


34 posted on 03/12/2009 10:47:34 AM PDT by Ransomed (Son of Ransomed Says Keep the Faith!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: NYer

if they can’t make the rules there will be NO rules.....


35 posted on 03/12/2009 11:04:54 AM PDT by tioga
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
The bad news is that the queers are doing this to support their agenda. IMHO, there is a seriously silver lining to this dark cloud.

Yeah, there is a libertarian side of me that perhaps the government should stay out of regulating marriage, leave it up to the churches and other religious institutions and/or common law. Still in my mind and heart, a marriage is between a man and a woman. The only other "bright side" is that least this is the more honest way to change the law my using the process that is using the standard legal process to change, amended, get rid of or make the law instead of using judicial fiat to thrust it upon us. Open it up to debate and let the legislators pass or fail it as it may be. The proponents of homosexual marriage have every right to go about and change the law through the standard process as we do preserving it and if they want something then this is the way they should do it. It is like Sgt. Joe Friday said in one "Dragnet 1967" episode, if you don't like a certain law, "work within the system to change it." I doubt this will pass but at least this is the more honest way to do it. I'm not for it of course, but I'm just saying this is the process on how we change and amend laws.
36 posted on 03/12/2009 7:05:19 PM PDT by Nowhere Man (Is Barak HUSSEIN Obama an Anti-Christ? - B.O. Stinks! (Robert Riddle))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: biff
Will these damn queers ever stop?

Well, it's like I said, this is the way laws are changed or amended but if they lose and fail to get it passed, then they should take their ball and bat and go home for a while but I doubt it will stop them if they fail in their efforts here.
37 posted on 03/12/2009 7:08:17 PM PDT by Nowhere Man (Is Barak HUSSEIN Obama an Anti-Christ? - B.O. Stinks! (Robert Riddle))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Marie
I don’t buy that stat about 50% ending on divorce.

You shouldn't.

http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/d/divorce.htm

38 posted on 03/12/2009 7:22:55 PM PDT by freedomwarrior998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson