California Governor and Attorney General Say Marriage can be Eliminated in Future

Christian News Wire ^ | Aug. 27

[ZGuy]

Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jerry Brown filed legal briefs saying the California Legislature can eliminate marriage rights and get rid of marriage.

In legal briefs submitted to the California Supreme Court, which is considering whether to license "same-sex marriages" next year, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown both stated that a future Legislature could abolish marriage and yank marriage rights from a married husband and wife.

It was revealed today that Attorney General Jerry Brown [see PDF of AG Jerry Brown's 8/17 brief ] and Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger [See PDF of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's 8/17 brief ] said the following in their August 17 supplemental briefs responding to questions from the California Supreme Court:

Marriage can be abolished in the future by the California Legislature

BROWN: ...the words "marry" and "marriage" have no essential constitutional significance under the California Constitution. Thus, the Legislature could change the name of the legal relationship now known as "marriage" to some other name without any constitutional impediment.

SCHWARZENEGGER: ...The Administration submits that use of the words "marry" and "marriage" is not required by the California Constitution. Thus, the name of the legal relationship now known as "marriage" could be changed.

Marriage rights and marriage benefits for a husband and wife can be eliminated by the California Legislature

BROWN: ...except for this essential ability to choose and declare one's life partner in a reciprocal and binding contractual commitment of mutual support, any of the statutory rights and obligations that are afforded exclusively to married couples in California could be abrogated or eliminated by the Legislature or the electorate for any rational legislative purpose.

SCHWARZENEGGER: …except for the ability to choose and declare one's life partner in a reciprocal commitment of mutual support, any of the statutory rights and obligations that are afforded to married couples in California could be abrogated or eliminated by the Legislature or the electorate for any rational legislative purpose.

"This is proof positive that the VoteYesMarriage.com initiative, which will prevent marriage from being abolished and prevent marriage rights from being eliminated, is absolutely needed to protect the sacred institution of marriage from activist judges and liberal politicians," said Randy Thomasson, an organizer of the VoteYesMarriage.com California Marriage Amendment, which is aiming for the 2008 ballot.

"Protecting the word 'marriage' in the state constitution is useless if the politicians can still get rid of marriage and marriage rights for a man and a woman," concluded Thomasson. "Clearly, the VoteYesMarriage.com amendment, which will override the judges and politicians and preserve everything about marriage for one man and one woman, is the only way to protect this special institution for future generations to respect and enjoy."

[P-Marlowe]

I think this qualifies as a rumor. Arnold may be stupid, but he’s not that stupid.

[goldstategop]

I moved from California to Colorado last winter. My former state is intent on becoming a giant sized Massachusetts.

"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

[goldstategop]

YES - he's THAT stupid. This is the guy that promotes Algore's global warming hoax with a gusto and who signed AB32 into law despite the fact his party in the legislature voted AGAINST it. He's all muscle, no brains.

"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

[ProtectOurFreedom]

...essential ability to choose and declare one's life partner in a reciprocal and binding contractual commitment of mutual support...

Do you, George, choose and declare Henry in a reciprocal and binding contractual commitment of mutual support?

Has a certain, nice ring to it, no?

[Sgt_Schultze]

It seemss to me such a development would be a boon to CA lawyers. Wouldn’t the elimination of marriage also eliminate protections for marrieds, like community property, divorce distributions and rights of survivorship?

[goldstategop]

It doesn't say man and a woman. Liberals deconstruct and torture beyond all recognition the age old and customary understanding of the language.

"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

[DManA]

I'd be interested to see a list of these rights and benefits. Mostly I'm aware of obligations.

Marriage rights and marriage benefits

[Calpernia]

Crispin Sartwell, Associate Professor of Political Science (2004).
B.A., University of Maryland, 1980; M.A., Johns Hopkins University, 1985; Ph.D., University of Virginia, 1989.

August 11, 2007

Gay Marriage and Leadership
By Crispin Sartwell

Appearing at a forum for gay voters on August 9, the top Democratic candidates, with many a hem and a haw, restated their opposition to gay marriage. Among many symptoms of the deep cowardice and entirely compromised ethics of the party, this is as clear as any.

If you have any notion that people deserve equal basic rights, if you have any commitment to the ideals of the Declaration of Independence, if you have any reservations about treating certain groups as second-class citizens, if you were ever inspired by the words of King, then you must be in favor of gay marriage.

At one point in the debate, Obama, declining to endorse marriage in response to a question from the pop singer Melissa Etheridge, said "I am a leader now" on gay rights. And, as Dorothy Parker might put it, I am the Queen of Rumania.

If this were 1960, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Bill Richardson, and (believe it or not) Barack Obama would mouth the language of equality, integration, and Christian love, boldly declaring their own leadership as they rejected the core demands of the Civil Rights movement for things like, say, voting rights.

I assume that these four candidates all privately support gay marriage; it is the only position on the issue that has any consonance with their constantly-mouthed basic political values. So I assume that their public pronouncements are simply false; that they're misrepresenting their own convictions.

But it's a difficult dilemma: either they are genuinely committed to bigotry and a policy that enforces it, or they are misrepresenting their own egalitarian beliefs, feeling that endorsing equal basic rights would keep them from getting elected. There is no third possibility, and either is enough to refute a political life, to indicate that these people don't deserve any position of public trust.

The cowardice of Democrats is a theme of our political era. You'd think, with a series of political successes behind them - including taking control of Congress - and the prospect of more in the offing, they would be, in the current military phrase "emboldened." You'd think, even for the most calculating and convictionless politician, now would be the time to delineate and endorse a basic set of values.

But nothing really serves to embolden the shy little bunny rabbits and yipping lap dogs that the Democratic party daily parades before the public.

They can still be railroaded into any compromise of basic American liberties, as in the vote as they went to recess to empowering Alberto Gonzales and company to spy on Americans. Meanwhile, they condemn Gonzales for his lies and equivocations before Congress about these very same surveillance programs.

I'd like to see Dennis Kucinich or Mike Gravel - the two Democratic candidates who endorse gay marriage - start to poll in double digits. Not only would this be an indication that Democratic voters have more conviction than their major candidates, it would put pressure on the major candidates to try to square their policies with their professed values.

At any rate, I think it's fair to say that no civil rights movement has ever basically succeeded through the political process; it takes decades after conscience has spoken for the American political system to catch up.

Lincoln was still opposing the abolition of slavery as the Civil War began. The NAACP and the civil rights movement had to force equal rights and integration onto the government agenda by decades of hard work. It took the American feminist movement a century to achieve even suffrage.

And we should expect the same with regard to the gay rights movement: there will be lots of hard work, slogging state to state, dragging the system kicking and screaming into some sort of consistency.

But if you expect political figures to lead on this sort of thing, you're barking up the wrong country.

Crispin Sartwell teaches Political Science at Dickinson College in Carlisle, PA.

[Hydroshock]

I to would be very interested in seeing hte briefs.

[goldstategop]

What it would mean is that traditional marriage no longer has any special significance for society. That there is no reason to prefer it over other forms of social unions. Once you destroy marriage and the family, the state can become the ultimate familias. Its no secret that's what the Left really wants.

"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

[Fishrrman]

I’ve lived in CA for years, but find this hard to believe. It’s like the government is leading us into social anarchy

That's _exactly_ where the "California government" is leading you to.

Serious question: have you ever thought of _getting out_ of California, while there's still time to do so?

At some future point, you must understand, there will develop such an exodus of the Euro/productive residents of that state that they are going to make it very difficult for you to leave....

- John

[goldstategop]

I've already left, thank Heaven. I have no intention of living out the rest of my life in a Left Coast Sodom and Gomorrah.

"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

[Loud Mime]

Serious question: have you ever thought of _getting out_ of California, while there's still time to do so?

I'm caring for elderly parents in CA; I'm not leaving. In the meantime, I'm giving the liberals a good fight. So far I've changed 8 democrats into libertarians and one into a republican.

If you change "California" to "Iraq" in your sentence, you'll get my drift.

[Tarkin]

“The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.
Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival.”

Loving v. Virginia 388 U.S. 1 (1967)

[svcw]

Me either. There is a tendency for some “christian” news reports to well..you get what I mean.
It could be true as stated but I doubt it.

[Lurking in Kansas]

I don't think the women of California will still for this.

No marriage = no divorce.
No marriage + no divorce = no alimony.

[xzins]

I hope you’re right. This would be insane.

It does make me think, though, that a high vis run for the presidency in Calif, would give Duncan Hunter the name recog to go for gov of Calif. Maybe from there, he could get support for Presidency in 4-8 years.

But I don’t pretend to know much about Calif politics.

[Calpernia]

M AXINE EICHNER, University of Houston Law Center. Excerpt:

My hope in this Article is to offer such a workable approach. In Part I, I consider four prominent entries in the debate over the state’s treatment of relationships between adults. The first two of these views -- Martha Fineman’s and Michael Warner’s -- argue that the state should eliminate civil marriage.

[Lurking in Kansas]

Let's retry this:

I don't think the women of California will stand for this.
No marriage = no divorce.
No marriage + no divorce = no alimony.

[Mr. Jeeves]

Government Marriage should be eliminated...though I doubt that's what they have in mind. ;)