Commentary from FRC after the jump …
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.”
[From Opponents of gay marriage say they'll sue over changed wording in Proposition 8 - Los Angeles Times]
From Family Research Council Action …
As California families fight tooth and nail to preserve marriage in November, the state’s attorney general made no secret of which side of the debate he was on when he launched a surprise attack on the language of Proposition 8, the initiative defining marriage as the union of a man and woman. Attorney General Jerry Brown sabotaged the amendment’s description in an obvious attempt to influence voters. Rather than use the original text, which states, “[Proposition 8] provide[s] that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California,” Brown’s version makes sweeping claims that banning same-sex marriage would have a negative impact on the state’s economy.
He editorializes the description to state: “[Proposition 8] changes the California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry. Provides that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. Fiscal Impact: Over the next few years, potential revenue loss, mainly sales taxes, totaling in the several tens of millions of dollars, to state and local governments. In the long run, like little fiscal impact on state and local governments.”
Perhaps the most infuriating part of the new language is that it suggests homosexuals will somehow be deprived of a “right” to marry that does not exist (except in the minds of four activist judges). Brown speculates that there will be “revenue loss… in the several tens of millions of dollars,” which is a totally unsubstantiated accusation. Knowing how the economy looms on voters’ minds, Brown is using people’s pocketbooks to prejudice them against the amendment. To cloud the issue with Brown’s personal bias is simply indefensible. ProtectMarriage, the coalition on the ground in California, announced this morning that it will file a lawsuit seeking to block the biased summary from appearing on the ballot. We will keep you updated on the case as it develops.
All of the marriage battles have been unpleasant but I had a feeling this one would get spectacularly ugly. I previously posted …
I will say that I am watching all of this with a sad and contemplative heart. We definitely need to be praying.
I am still on that course of action.
Related posts (automatically generated)
Add New Comment
Viewing 5 Comments
Thanks. Your comment is awaiting approval by a moderator.
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
Add New Comment
Trackbacks
(Trackback URL)