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.
{ 5 comments… read them below or add one }
I think you did a nice job talking about the deceptive use of words in Jerry Brown’s new ballot amendment. I think it is important that Californians understand that on California’s new marriage licenses there are no more “husbands” and “wives” only “Party A” and “Party B.”
On my website there are a couple of articles that basically “busts” the California Supreme Court for ordering everyone to use the word “marriage” in a deceptive way. I don’t know if Judge George meant to do it or not, but he sort of confesses right in his opinion.
Paul Benedicts last blog post..Another Genius! on … http://thetownscrier.blogspot.com
@Paul Benedict – Thank you for weighing in Paul. I will check out your blog.
I’m concerned that the article from the FRC is factually inaccurate
The FRC may not like the Court’s decision and they may be upset that gay couples now have a right to marriage, but they cannot truthfully state that it does not exist. The Supreme Court of California is charged with interpreting the state constitution. They found that barring gay couples from marriage is unconstitutional. That is now precedent and law of the land. It is no more “in the minds of judges” then the right to an integrated education.
Thus, the proposed amendment will in fact remove a right that currently exists. In California, same-sex couples have a legal right to civil marriage. The FRC may not like it, they may want it removed, but it exists.
I’m disappointed by this act of dishonesty
@Brian -
I am disappointed you think it is dishonest. They believe what they are saying and have done a good job of describing the full context (in this with other articles) … not just the misjudgment of the four judges. They believe, as do I, that those four judges completely abdicated their duty in order to pass their own opinion in the name of the CA constitution. They also trumped the state DOMA law to create a “right” out of thin air. (in our opinion.)
I can understand if you think their argument or reasoning is flawed but to say they are being dishonest … ? That implies they know what your saying is true and choosing to lie about it.
I also thought I saw somewhere that Attorney General Brown believes that the language in Proposition 8 is not retroactive. Brown clearly has a bias in his perception of this issue. Since the California Supremes did not even hear the case, why does Brown think he has a right to alter the language in any way?
The honesty issue might be made all the muddier by remembering that Chief Justice George is using the word “marry” in a very different way than either Proposition 8 or 22 did. To Chief Justice George “marriage” is a nebulous and undefined patchwork of rights that, appearing or disappearing at the whim of government, are conferred on people “Party A” and “Party B”. That’s not exactly marriage– not the way it’s meant in Prop. 8 or 22.
Paul Benedicts last blog post..Another Genius! on … http://thetownscrier.blogspot.com