(no subject)
Thank god there are some civilized people out there fighting for what's right.
Calif. court OKs anti-partner wording
Ann Rostow, PlanetOut Network
52 minutes ago
SUMMARY: A superior court judge in Sacramento, Calif., approved the formal description of one of two anti-gay constitutional amendments.
On Thursday a superior court judge in Sacramento, Calif., put a stamp of approval on the formal description of one of two anti-gay constitutional amendments now cleared for signature-gathering in the state.
The description, fine-tuned this week by Attorney General Bill Lockyer, explicitly states that the measure will roll back domestic partner rights now available to same-sex couples through a statewide registry. The rights and benefits of domestic partners in California are virtually the same as those offered married couples by the state.
Lockyer titled the proposed amendment: "Marriage. Elimination of Domestic Partnership Rights." The authors of the amendment, Voteyesmarriage.com, had suggested the initiative be called "Voters' Right to Protect Marriage Initiative."
When Lockyer first released his headline and summary, the anti-gay marriage activists sued the attorney general's office, claiming Lockyer's "biased" description was illegal. After a hearing on the matter, Judge Raymond M . Cadei approved Lockyer's headline, but asked him to make a few minor changes in his 100-word summary. On Thursday, Judge Cadei gave the green light to Lockyer's revisions, making clear that the official explanations must tell voters exactly how devastating the amendment would be to domestic partners.
Supporters call the lengthy amendment "the true blue amendment" to distinguish it from a shorter version being championed by Protectmarriage.com, a rival group of anti-marriage activists. The "true blue" text defines marriage in the state Constitution as a heterosexual union, and then goes on extensively to make sure domestic partner rights are also destroyed.
"Neither the Legislature nor any court, government institution, government agency, initiative statute, local government or government official shall ... bestow statutory rights or incidents of marriage on unmarried persons, or require private entities to offer or provide rights or incidents of marriage to unmarried persons," reads one section. The language would unravel years of legislative and judicial efforts to close the gap between gay and straight couples.
According to the San Francisco Chronicle, Voteyesmarriage activists will appeal Thursday's ruling to a higher court, and will postpone signature-gathering until their legal efforts are exhausted. The group has until Dec. 22 to solicit names from 598,105 registered voters in order to qualify for the June 2006 primary ballot.
Protectmarriage.com supporters have the same task, if they are to qualify their anti-marriage amendment. Their selected version is brief, but appears to outlaw both marriage and domestic partnerships as well. Lockyer has titled this proposal: "Marriage. Invalidation of Domestic Partnerships." Protectmarriage.com has other proposed anti-marriage amendments that they appear to be keeping in reserve.
The court ruling coincided with a historic vote in the California state Senate, where lawmakers passed a bill to legalize same-sex marriage by a 21-15 vote. The victory marked the first time that a legislative body had voted in favor of marriage equality, and was hailed by gay rights activists and their allies in Sacramento. The bill, by Assembly member Mark Leno of San Francisco, now goes to the state Assembly, where it was defeated once before.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has not promised a veto, but he has said previously that he believes the state's marriage policies should be decided by the voters, or by the high court.
Calif. court OKs anti-partner wording
Ann Rostow, PlanetOut Network
52 minutes ago
SUMMARY: A superior court judge in Sacramento, Calif., approved the formal description of one of two anti-gay constitutional amendments.
On Thursday a superior court judge in Sacramento, Calif., put a stamp of approval on the formal description of one of two anti-gay constitutional amendments now cleared for signature-gathering in the state.
The description, fine-tuned this week by Attorney General Bill Lockyer, explicitly states that the measure will roll back domestic partner rights now available to same-sex couples through a statewide registry. The rights and benefits of domestic partners in California are virtually the same as those offered married couples by the state.
Lockyer titled the proposed amendment: "Marriage. Elimination of Domestic Partnership Rights." The authors of the amendment, Voteyesmarriage.com, had suggested the initiative be called "Voters' Right to Protect Marriage Initiative."
When Lockyer first released his headline and summary, the anti-gay marriage activists sued the attorney general's office, claiming Lockyer's "biased" description was illegal. After a hearing on the matter, Judge Raymond M . Cadei approved Lockyer's headline, but asked him to make a few minor changes in his 100-word summary. On Thursday, Judge Cadei gave the green light to Lockyer's revisions, making clear that the official explanations must tell voters exactly how devastating the amendment would be to domestic partners.
Supporters call the lengthy amendment "the true blue amendment" to distinguish it from a shorter version being championed by Protectmarriage.com, a rival group of anti-marriage activists. The "true blue" text defines marriage in the state Constitution as a heterosexual union, and then goes on extensively to make sure domestic partner rights are also destroyed.
"Neither the Legislature nor any court, government institution, government agency, initiative statute, local government or government official shall ... bestow statutory rights or incidents of marriage on unmarried persons, or require private entities to offer or provide rights or incidents of marriage to unmarried persons," reads one section. The language would unravel years of legislative and judicial efforts to close the gap between gay and straight couples.
According to the San Francisco Chronicle, Voteyesmarriage activists will appeal Thursday's ruling to a higher court, and will postpone signature-gathering until their legal efforts are exhausted. The group has until Dec. 22 to solicit names from 598,105 registered voters in order to qualify for the June 2006 primary ballot.
Protectmarriage.com supporters have the same task, if they are to qualify their anti-marriage amendment. Their selected version is brief, but appears to outlaw both marriage and domestic partnerships as well. Lockyer has titled this proposal: "Marriage. Invalidation of Domestic Partnerships." Protectmarriage.com has other proposed anti-marriage amendments that they appear to be keeping in reserve.
The court ruling coincided with a historic vote in the California state Senate, where lawmakers passed a bill to legalize same-sex marriage by a 21-15 vote. The victory marked the first time that a legislative body had voted in favor of marriage equality, and was hailed by gay rights activists and their allies in Sacramento. The bill, by Assembly member Mark Leno of San Francisco, now goes to the state Assembly, where it was defeated once before.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has not promised a veto, but he has said previously that he believes the state's marriage policies should be decided by the voters, or by the high court.