This initiative measure is submitted to the people in accordance with the provisions of Article II, Section 8, of the California Constitution.
This initiative measure expressly amends the California Constitution by adding a section thereto; therefore, new provisions proposed to be added are printed in italic type to indicate that they are new.SECTION 1. Title This measure shall be known and may be cited as the "California Marriage Protection Act."
SECTION 2. Section 7.5 is added to Article I of the California Constitution, to read:
BACKGROUNDSEC. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.
In March 2000, California voters passed Proposition 22 to specify in state law that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. In May 2008, the California Supreme Court ruled that the statute enacted by Proposition 22 and other statutes that limit marriage to a relationship between a man and a woman violated the equal protection clause of the California Constitution. It also held that individuals of the same sex have the right to marry under the California Constitution. As a result of the ruling, marriage between individuals of the same sex is currently valid or recognized in the state.
This would seem to have been a HUGE move in the Gay Rights Movement as they were able to legally marry. However, then comes along Proposition 8 which seems to have the same effect as Proposition 22. But, wait a minute...didn't the courts overturn Proposition 22 as being unconstitutional? So, it seems like we voted for the same thing twice and again there is a lawsuit to overturn Proposition 8. (Oh, yes...this is the same thing!!)
In August 2010, once again a federal judge in California rules that the state's same-sex marriage ban amounts to unconstitutional discrimination and should be immediately struck down. Per ABC News, "Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license," wrote U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker in a 136-page decision. "Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples."
Walker issued a stay on the order overturning Prop 8 to allow supporters of the measure to argue why it should remain in effect while pursuing an appeal. The case is expected to reach the U.S. Supreme Court.
As a Republican (don't stone me yet...I'm changing my registered party affiliation) and a Christian, I was absolutely appalled and angered at those that wanted Yes on 8 (no same-sex marriage) especially the church because they misled and LIED about what it really meant and the impact.
It has nothing to do with schools. Local school districts and parents, NOT the State, develop health education programs for their schools.
NO CHILD CAN BE FORCED, AGAINST THE WILL OF THEIR PARENTS, TO BE TAUGHT ANYTHING about health and family issues. CALIFORNIA LAW PROHIBITS IT. Currently, they are not taught about common law marriage!!!
Also, with so much campaigning and discussion about it, almost every child, has probably heard about it anyway. It doesn't make the fact that one of their classmates may be being raised by a same sex couple.
Domestic Partnerships and Marriage are not the same!! Only marriage provides the security that spouses provide one another—it’s why people get married in the first place! Think about it. Married couples depend on spouses when they’re sick, hurt, or aging. They accompany them into ambulances or hospital rooms, and help make life-and-death decisions, with no questions asked. ONLY MARRIAGE ENDS THE CONFUSION AND GUARANTEES THE CERTAINTY COUPLES CAN COUNT ON IN TIMES OF GREATEST NEED.
It does not mean that it takes away the rights of gay and lesbian couples and treats them differently under the law. Equality under the law is one of the basic foundations of our society. It means one class of citizens can enjoy the same dignity and responsibility of marriage as any other couple, not more or less.
It does not mean that churches may have their tax exempt status challenged or revoked if they publicly oppose same-sex marriage or refuse to allow same-sex marriage ceremonies in their religious buildings open to the public. Ellen Aprill, a tax law professor at Loyola Law School, called Peterson's claim "a bit of fear mongering." Challenges to a church's tax-exempt status based solely on its stance on gay marriage would probably not survive in federal or state courts, she said."We have many places where we recognize religious organizations' right to free expression," Aprill said.
Adoption agencies will be forced to place children with same-sex couples, regardless of an agency's beliefs. Adoption agencies that oppose placing children with same-sex couples for religious or other reasons have already been forced to stop providing adoption services in Massachusetts and California.
However, according to the Los Angeles Times, Take the story of Catholic Charities. The service arm of the Roman Catholic Church closed its adoption program in Massachusetts not because of the state's gay marriage law but because of a gay anti-discrimination law passed many years earlier. In fact, the charity had voluntarily placed older foster children in gay and lesbian households -- among those most willing to take hard-to-place children -- until the church hierarchy was alerted and demanded that adoptions conform to the church's religious teaching, which was in conflict with state law. The Proposition 8 campaign, funded in large part by Mormons who were urged to do so by their church, does not mention that the Mormon church's adoption arm in Massachusetts is still operating, even though it does not place children in gay and lesbian households.
How can this be? It's a matter of public accountability, not infringement on religion. Catholic Charities acted as a state contractor, receiving state and federal money to find homes for special-needs children who were wards of the state, and it faced the loss of public funding if it did not comply with the anti-discrimination law. In contrast, LDS (for Latter-day Saints) Family Services runs a private adoption service without public funding. Its work, and its ability to follow its religious teachings, have not been altered.
There was and still are many false beliefs regarding Proposition 8. But, I've done the research and looked at the legal, religious and sociology for and against. Bottom line is that I support No on Proposition 8 and am happy that the GLBT community finally are making progress for their civil rights. I am ready for that day when my homosexual friends can marry, have children and grow old together which is the same as most heterosexuals in the dating world...it is a human desire no matter who you love.