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
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-38 next last
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]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-38 next last

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