Posted by
Playful Walrus on Wednesday, February 04, 2009 3:15:17 PM
Maura Dolan and Jessica Garrison have today's California Marriage Amendment update in the Los Angeles Times.
The California Supreme Court announced Tuesday that it would hear arguments March 5 over the constitutionality of [the California Marriage Amendment], the November ballot measure that reinstated [traditional marriage licensing per the will of the people].
It was easier for me to clarify the text than explain again how the newspaper was being imprecise in their terminology.
Forty-three groups representing civil rights activists, legal scholars, labor unions, bar associations, state legislators and religious organizations have filed written arguments asking that [the court, which is supposed to be guided by the state constitution, strike down the constitutional amendment].
The only civil rights involved is the right to vote. And why are labor unions getting involved? Do you know where your union dues are? Oh, and somehow, I don't think we'll see the marriage neutering crowd complain about the support they are getting from "religious organizations", though they are quick to claim Mormons somehow violated the "separation of church and state" by getting involved in protecting marriage.
Twenty organizations, including religious and legal groups, have argued that the measure should be upheld.
It doesn't really matter how many argued for what. The people have spoken. Twice. Yes we did!.. Yes we did!
According to final fundraising reports filed this week, both sides in the battle over the ballot measure together raised $83 million -- the most ever for an electoral fight over a social issue in California.
The final tallies for money spent through Dec. 31 show that opponents of the measure raised $44,103,525, while supporters took in $38,766,260.
We had less money and we still won.
The most recent reports showed that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints donated more than $180,000 in in-kind contributions to the campaign for Proposition 8.
A relative drop in the bucket, but that won’t stop those hating on that church.
The contributions included tens of thousands of dollars for expenses such as airline tickets, hotels, restaurants and rental cars for top church officials, including L. Whitney Clayton, a church elder.
The church also reported $96,849.31 in contributions consisting of "compensated staff time" for church employees.
And what about the "churches" who are trying to force neutered marriage licensing on the rest of us? How much did they contribute? They stand to financially gain by performing more ceremonies.
Since the article was previewed on the paper's blog, you can see reader comments (most of them typical) and add your own.
"Dyan" wrote February 04, 2009 at 03:37 AM:
For more than 17 years, I have been everything a wife could be to my partner and she to me:
A wife is someone who is married to man.
I loved her, nurtured her, cared for her when she was sick, cried for her when she was hurting, cheered with her when she was celebrating.
Okay, fine. You can do that with or without a ceremony, and with or without a state license.
But I was not able to call her my wife until July 8, 2008, when I had the privilege, honor and joy of legally marrying her.
Why not? Who stopped you from calling her your wife? There was no law against it, and there is no law against it now, whether or not you got a court-fabricated neutered marriage license or not. And by the way, she was either "Party A" or "Party B".
All I ask is that not be taken away from me for religious reasons that I do not share.
Standard appeal to emotion that doesn’t hold any water. Even if the court decides that the California Marriage Amendment invalidates your marriage license, nobody is going to be able to stop you from calling her your wife. If the legal structuring of the relationship is so important to you, then I suggest taking advantage of California's domestic partnerships if you haven't done so already. If you are domestic partners, nothing has or will be changed either by the court or the vote.
The paper also ran this commentary arguing that it is too easy to amend California's constitution. Yes, it is always "too easy" when something we don't like gets passed. But by all means, let's make it harder to pass an amendment before a marriage-neutering amendment makes it to the ballot.
Of course, we could save a lot of trouble by ditching the constitution entirely, along with the office of Governor and the Assembly and Senate, and simply let the state's Supreme Court decide everything (including picking their own replacements).