Tuesday, August 28, 2007

California to Terminate Marriage?

At one time, certain Republican operatives pushed the idea that the Constitution should be changed to allow non-native-born citizens to become President of the US. That push was built around the persona of "The Terminator."

Now Aaaaaahhhhhnold opines that 'marriage' could be terminated in California, to facilitate gay 'marriage.' On the face of it, Arnold's right. SCOCA is nuts, of course, so California could well simply terminate "marriage."

Got that?

In legal briefs submitted to the California Supreme Court, which is considering whether to license "same-sex marriages" next year, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown both stated that a future Legislature could abolish marriage and yank marriage rights from a married husband and wife.

...Schwarzenegger's brief states: ". . . except for the ability to choose and declare one's life partner in a reciprocal commitment of mutual support, any of the statutory rights and obligations that are afforded to married couples in California could be abrogated or eliminated by the Legislature or the electorate for any rational legislative purpose."

"Moonbeam" Brown's brief was similar.

The context is a lawsuit filed to allow same-sex marriage now before the California Supreme Court. The court is expected to rule in favor of 'same-sex marriage.'

Aaaaahhhhnold's declaration that the word "marriage" is not long for the world of California is important because:

Californians voted in 2000 on Proposition 22, which reads, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California," approving it by a significant margin.

However, the Democrat-controlled Legislature gradually has created "same-sex marriage by another name" by legislatively granting the rights of marriage to same-sex duos.

Then in 2005, the California courts said Proposition 22 protected only the word "marriage" but not the rights of marriage. The decision said Proposition 22 did not specifically protect marriage rights, so lawmakers could award the rights of marriage to homosexual partners.

"Because the plain, unambiguous language of Proposition 22 is concerned only with who is entitled to obtain the status of marriage, and not with the rights and obligations associated with marriage, (state law) does not add to, or take away from, Proposition 22," the court said.

(Screechin'Shirley is undoubtedly taking notes here...)

So the voters amend the Constitution Family Code* to prohibit gay "marriage," and the Courts find that the amendment only protects the WORD 'marriage.' Therefore, the 'rights and obligations of marriage' may be granted to OTHER unions......yada yada yada yada.

Alice, ask the Queen of Hearts to call home.

*Edited with knowledgeable input from No Runny Eggs


steveegg said...

I wonder if those that objected to just The Second Sentence see why it needed to be in there.

Amy said...

Wow. Talk about children on a playground. If X can't play, no one can. Never mind that X made a decision to live a lifestyle alternative to that which has - for centuries - been the established norm.


Dad29 said...

MOST of those "who objected to the Second Sentence" knew EXACTLY why it was there.

However, there was a Failure of Cynicism on the part of a certain morning Talker...

steveegg said...

That's precisely who I was refering to.