SAN FRANCISCO - Supporters of the California marriage amendment have filed suit over the recent wording changes to Proposition 8, decrying that the new ballot title and summary creates prejudice against the measure.
When Californians step into voting booths this November, Prop. 8 supporters don't want them to decide on a measure entitled, "Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry," as Attorney General Jerry Brown has re-written. Neither do the traditional marriage backers want the ballot summary to read: "Changes the California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry."
In papers filed Tuesday, Prop. 8 attorney Andrew Pugno, argued that the new ballot language is "inherently argumentative and highly likely to create prejudice" against the measure, the San Francisco Chronicle reports.
The lawsuit, filed in Sacramento County Superior Court, is asking the court to revert the ballot wording back to the original title and summary that over 1.2 millions voters approved when they signed a petition to place the measure on the Nov. 4 ballot.
Prop. 8 originally went by the title, "Limit on Marriage," with the first sentence of the summary reading: "Amends the California Constitution to provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."
Brown said he changed to ballot to reflect the May 15 Supreme Court decision to allow same-sex couples to marry.
But Jennifer Kerns, a spokeswoman for ProtectMarriage.com-Yes on 8, pointed out that never before has a statewide ballot used an active verb like "eliminates" in the title, according to The Mercury News.
She said such changes are unfair and should be undone.
"We feel the ballot language is so inflammatory that it will unduly prejudice voters against the measure," Kerns told the San Jose-based paper.
Supporters of the amendment have only a few days to overturn the new language before ballot documents are sent to the state printer by Aug. 11. They are seeking an expedited hearing before the court.
RSS
You're painful in the fact that you're actively trying to not listen to Chino. What he was saying was that as a single person, she couldn't possibly know what it is to be married, and so couldn't someone who is married better serve since they know more about what its like?
mike
I never said he believed it was in the bible, what I said was it is not in the Bible "do not defend marriage unless your married". She does not follow the opinions of anyone but the opinion of God. He might not value her thoughts and take notice of it because she is not married, however God is using her talents to defend His truths. Did I explain it better for ya this time. Anyways How am I painful?
Chino never said it was in the Bible...that was never Chino's point. I don't think you're stupid, but I think many times you actively pretend not to understand what they're saying. You're painful dude.
Chino
No where in the Bible does it say you have to be married to stand up for marriage as God wants it. In fact Paul stated that single people could devote more time and effort in relaying truth and doing God's work. So by no means she has your blessing, but she has God's
I don't know all the ins or out, but willful sinning has consequences, if that willful behaviour lands them in jail for a long period of time, then maybe it would be considered willful abandonment whic I think is justifiable biblical grounds for a divorce. However, I beleive God would still want you to try to reconcile if possible.
mike
i hear what you are saying,ande it is hard to follow God through some situations, but we must do it. God never said that we are not to let sinful behaviour go unpunished. there are laws that can help these people out/ there are consequences to sinful behaviour. I would lock them up in jail. Maybe the time will help get them back on track to Godly living.
Hmm...so if you're getting punched down every night, you should just stay with him and love him through the alcoholism? I'm sure that's how God would want it!
mike
divorce is always bad. Even if it seems like it is the best thing for the kids, becuase what is even better is showing love to one who has wronged you. Humbling oneself before God learn how it is that God wanted to people behave in a marriage, their proper roles and commands giving to each to obey. This is for better for a child to learn. That all thoings are possible through God. It shows a child how to better resolve their own issues when they get married instead of running to divorce. Divorce is always about pride and selfishness, and when you reallign your thinking to God's then everything works out. I have seen this many times. My wife and I volunteer for Family Life every year for there marriage conferences. We see people come back the following year that say not only is their marriage better, but their kids are doing so much better knowing mommy and daddy love each other.
No, that's not the "logic" I'm using here. I'm saying that it would be just a little hypocritical for a drunk to accept payment for preaching about the dangers of alcoholism.
Jennifer Kerns is 35 years old and single. And yet she's getting paid to tell California parents something about marriage? Give me a break.
So, Chino, you said:
"I suspect that Jennifer Kerns is, in fact, single. If so, how about Jennifer leaving the business of "protecting marriage" to those of us who've actually chosen marriage?"
So, by that logic, no one should speak out about alcoholism unless they have been an alcoholic? They cannot promote legislation requiring cyclists to wear a helmet unless they themselves ride a motorcycle?
Many people with great ideas would be shut out of discussion in the public square if they had to meet your criteria for admittance.
Jennifer Kerns is quoted in the article as a spokeswoman for 'ProtectMarriage.com-Yes on 8', but the question I'd like to ask is:
Is Jennifer even married?
Does she have children?
She's being quoted here as the lead spokeswoman of a campaign to deny the benefits of marriage to real parents raising real kids. I'm straight, married, and like to think my wife and I are raising a couple of great kids. But, if you're going to convince me to deny the benefits of marriage to gay parents, I need to hear from someone who brings some actual personal experience with caring for a family of their own.
I suspect that Jennifer Kerns is, in fact, single.
If so, how about Jennifer leaving the business of "protecting marriage" to those of us who've actually chosen marriage?
mike2685, I agree that sometimes good things can result from a divorced situation and I agree many people marry before they are ready, but divorce is always the result of sin and the primary sin being self-centeredness that either leads to the divorce in the form of say cheating or abuse or being the reason for the divorce in the form of say the grass always being greener on the other side mindset. In other words either one or the other or both think that marriage is about getting their needs met as opposed to meeting the needs of each other.
Mike--"I think there are many times divorce is so much better than staying together."
I have a unique insight into divorce. My wife sinned. Quite a bit. She left 13 times in 14 years of marriage. Sometimes with the kids and sometimes without. She had 2 affairs that I found out about. Still, I stayed with it until she divorced me.
Over the past 20 years I have had many conversations with many couples considering divorce. I have made them a deal... they tell me why they want to leave and I'll tell them what I went through and why I stayed. If what they are going through is worse than what I worked through then I would give them my blessing to divorce their spouse. I have never had to do it. I have, however, had people ask me what I told their spouse. "They came home...got down on their knees and begged my forgiveness for being so selfish!"
So yes Paul does give exceptions for divorce. Jesus gives exception for divorce in the passage where He quotes the OT "a man shall leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife and the two shall become one flesh". Jesus says it's because of the wickedness of their hearts that God allowed it.
In short, at no time is divorce not a sin. However, it can be one spouse sining against God and their spouse just like adultery. The spouse who did not commit adultry did not sin.
Still, there are no listed exceptions for homosexual behaviour.
I would really disagree with you on this one believer. I think there are many times divorce is so much better than staying together. Many people rush into marriage because they just feel it will save things, then realize it was a horrible mistake. I don't believe God would want 2 people who will be miserable the rest of their lives to stay together because of a mistake they made, ESPECIALLY if it means dragging children through the mud in a messy divorce.
mike2685, divorce is always about self-centeredness. It is either the desire or the cause of the divorce. So in essence divorce always involves sin which I guess you could say means all divorce is a sin in the sight of God.
Daniel, is divorce always a sin, or are there conditions, such as when the fighting just gets so bad that its no longer good for the kids?
" lowest divorce rate in the country. The highest? Ultra-red-state Oklahoma."
Divorce, living together and homosexuality are all sin. Note...divorce is just as wrong as homosexuality.
"Would the proponents of reinstating the ban against same-sex marriage make the same claim about, say, Loving v Virginia?"
Once again you are comparing apples to oranges. The color of one's skin is a trait. Homosexuality is a behavior. There is absolutely NO proof to the contrary.
Same sex marriage is based on what you do vs what you are. This is why it's referred to as 'sexual preference' or 'sexual orientation'.
Jesus said one man and one woman...the Bible NEVER says anyting about the color of the skin.
feetxxl said:
"..the mass supreme court said it right when they declared there "was no credible evidence to show why gays should not be allowed to marry." after living with legally allowing gays to marry for five years, the state has concluded that allowing it has been so positive that they what to be a haven for all gays who wish to marry."
- not only that, but Mass. now has the lowest divorce rate in the country. The highest? Ultra-red-state Oklahoma.
Would the proponents of reinstating the ban against same-sex marriage make the same claim about, say, Loving v Virginia? In that unanimous ruling the Supreme Court struck down all state laws against interracial marriage. Every single argument they make applies just as logically to that ruling. Consider the facts:
1. Unelected judges struck down laws passed democratically by state legislatures
2. Those laws against miscegenation had been in place for centuries and had historical pedigrees going back eons in many cultures.
3. No court had ever found a "right" to interracial marriage in our entire history
4. The framers of the 14th amendment, upon whose equal protection clause the ruling was based, not only did not believe that this law would strike down laws against miscegenation, they explicitly campaigned in favor of the amendment by telling people that it would not do so.
Yet in 1967, a bunch of unelected judges suddenly "discovered" this "right" that no court had ever discovered and asserted their will to overturn the clearly expressed will of the people in 16 states based on a constitutional clause that had been passed by people who explicitly and specifically denied that it would lead to the conclusion they came to. But guess what? The court was right.â€Â
"how can one view refusal to allow to marry as anything but subjective reasoning."
Simple...I don't believe the Bible is subjective. I don't believe God is subjective. It is your reasoning that the Bible is subjective which is subjective....
"It means to pre-judge."
Absolutely right. There is no data to support the rewording from an economic standpoint...period. It is a guess. It is a pre-judgement. Therefore, it prejudices the voters who don't know any better.
You're absolutely right, the new wording is pre-judging.
the mass supreme court said it right when they declared there "was no credible evidence to show why gays should not be allowed to marry." after living with legally allowing gays to marry for five years, the state has concluded that allowing it has been so positive that they what to be a haven for all gays who wish to marry.
how can one view refusal to allow to marry as anything but subjective reasoning.
(1) practicing homosexuals have never been found wanting in any sector of society compared to heterosexuals. they are no less a neighbor, brother, counselor, teacher ,attorney, adminstrator, father, brother, friend, etc.
homosexual committed bonded couples provide loving nurturing homes for raising children equal to those who legally are permitted to marry.
as this point it is hard to understand any benefit that can be accrued from continually denying legality. particularly when those who have tested allowing it and have found it be a positive influence on their state.
actually, jch, nothing has been proven as to whether or not it can be changed, although many Christians believe their extremely biased research rather than face the facts. Exodus claimed to do a longitudinal study....of 3 years. That's hardly the length of a normal study. Longitudinal have the word long in in for a reason...they should be conducted over 10, 20, 30 years to see what happens to people once the vicious reparative therapy effects wear off and they find that they're still gay, just lying to themselves.
I like the wording, they are crying, oops, DEcrying over the wording because they want to cover up the real truth, so typical! Gay couples indeed do have these rights, and there is no way to get around it, taking away marriage for gay couples in CA would take away the right they already have. That seems clear as crystal, so I'm not sure why Rolln and others are pretending its not.
I don't think these rights are ficticious.
If anyone actually read the California Supreme Courts decision..."...sections 1 and 7 of article I of the California Constitution cannot properly be interpreted to withhold from gay individuals the same basic civil right of personal autonomy and liberty (including the right to establish, with the person of one's choice, an officially recognized and sanctioned family) that the California Constitution affords to heterosexual individuals. The privacy and due process provisions of our state Constitution - in declaring that "all people...have the inalienable right of privacy, and that no person may be deprived of "liberty" without due process of law" do not purport to reserve to persons of a particular sexual orienation the substantive protection afforded by those provisions. In light of the evolution of our state's understanding concerning the equal dignity and respect to which all persons are entitled without regard to their sexual orientation, it is not appropriate to interpret these provisions in a way that, as a practical matter, excludes gay individuals from the protective reach of such basic civil rights."
Attorney General Jerry Brown did the right thing, ethically, morally, and legally.
To buy into the gay agenda which is based on lies and makes a mockery of the Declaration and Constitution, and falsely equate fictitious "rights" based solely on same-sex attraction with the legitimate rights of women and blacks, is to demean and dishonor all women and all blacks, who had to fight for their legitimate unalienable rights.
You need to read the Declaration of Independence, which defined the rights which you fought to preserve in this country. "...all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights..." Equality of unalienable rights is based on those traits with which we were endowed by our Creator, i.e. born with, such as one's sex or race. However, as roll4him correctly states, no one is entitled to "rights" based on one's same-sex attraction, with which no one was born, is not unalienable, and was not endowed by our Creator, and has been proven to be clearly changeable. Thus, rights which never existed can not be taken away, as you incorrectly assert; nor can they be "created" by a judge usurping his constitutional authority.
Right now, this very minute, gay and lesbians have the Constitutional right in the state of California to get married. They have had the right for over a month and will have had the right for almost 6 months by the Nov. vote. We've all seen them on tv getting married, solidifying their families, adding protections to their devotion to other and their children.
This is no different than when blacks got the right to vote, or when women got the right to vote or when inter-racial couples got the right to get married (by act of the California Supreme Court--not by a popular vote, BTW) and this country is about giving people equal rights, not taking them away.
Proposition 8 would clearly eliminate the right that same-sex couples currently have to get married. If you're asking the voters to write discrimination into the state Constitution for the first time in history, you should at least give them accurate information. The title as amended by Brown is accurate and fair.
Obviously this attorney, Andrew Pugno, hasn't a clue on what the term "prejudice" means. It means to pre-judge.
And in the case of gay marriage in California, the judgement has already been made!!
Kudos for Jerry Brown for wording this like it should be. Gay people in California have been given the legal right to marry. It's BEEN DONE! To reverse it would take those rights away.
Just think. Now that gay marriage is being legalized, there will now be married gay couples our family trees for generations to come.
Putting the wording there puts into print a projection verse fact. The new wording has moved from a fact to an opinion which cannot be proven.
Truth be known... there are already people looking for suppliers outside of CA because of the court ruling as it is. Actions to prejudice a fair and impartial vote could have grave economic problems for CA which will NOT be short term.
Hear, hear, rolln4him. Wordsmiths doing what they do best.
"[I]t depends on how you define "alone" ... there were a lot of times when we were alone, but I never really thought we were."
"It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is"
- excerpts from Bill Clinton's grand jury testimony
Boy, that Devil is clever. The AG is trying to word it so that people feel bad about "eliminating rights" - THERE WERE NO RIGHTS TO BEGIN WITH.