CA: Domestic Partnership Initiative Enters Circulation

[NMMNG]

Press Release from Secretary of State Debra Bowen's Website:

SACRAMENTO – Secretary of State Debra Bowen today announced that the proponents of a new initiative may begin collecting petition signatures for their measure.

The Attorney General prepares the legal title and summary that is required to appear on initiative petitions. When the official language is complete, the Attorney General forwards it to the proponents and to the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State then provides calendar deadlines to the proponents and to county elections officials, and the initiative may be circulated for signatures. The Attorney General’s official title and summary for the measure is as follows:

SUBSTITUTES DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIP FOR MARRIAGE IN CALIFORNIA LAW. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AND STATUTE. Replaces the term “marriage” with the term “domestic partnership” throughout California law, but preserves the rights provided in marriage. Applies equally to all couples, regardless of sexual orientation. Repeals the provision in California’s Constitution that states only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: This measure would have an unknown fiscal effect on state and local governments. (09-0003.)

The Secretary of State’s tracking number for this measure is 1356 and the Attorney General’s tracking number is 09-0003.
The proponents for this measure, Kaelan Housewright and Ali Shams, must collect signatures of 694,354 registered voters – the number equal to 8% of the total votes cast for governor in the 2006 gubernatorial election – in order to qualify it for the ballot. The proponents have 150 days to circulate petitions for this measure, meaning the signatures must be collected by August 6, 2009.

Now watch the bigots' heads explode. :nuke:

[pepperbear]

1. k and r n/t

[TechBear_Seattle]

2. Oh, yeah!

:fistbump:

[AndyTiedye]

3. If Prop 8 Stands, That is the Only Way

Anything else clearly violates the state constitution.

[ColbertWatcher]

4. Anything less than full marriage is caving into the Talibornigans. n/t

[NMMNG]

6. I don't like anything less myself

But the second they start screaming that "Civil unions" aren't good enough because they aren't marriage they're trapped. They've been preaching all along that we should accept Civil Unions/Domestic Partnerships as a substitute for Marriage because they're exactly like marriage in everything but name. Once they decide a CU just isn't good enough for them they'll be openly admitting their lie and it won't be usable any longer.

[bluedawg12]

16. Their whine won't be logical, it will skip from A to C and then to E.

and they will bellow, "See they're destroying marriage."

"They want to do away with marriage."

Their underlying position is not equality, it's exceptionalism, they will revert back to their old bigoted argument that, "marriage is between one m and one w," and will argue that there is no need to change it for themselves to accommodate teh gay.

I bet a vitrual beer on this being the first poop shoot out of their yaps.

[NMMNG]

18. When are they ever logical?

Gays shouldn't be able to marry because they can't procreate!
Gays shouldn't be able to marry because it's unhealthy for children to be raised in such an environment!

(If we can't procreate, why are they worried about the children we supposedly can't have?)


You're right. It's all about keeping everything for themselves and keeping us down, not about "freedom of religion", protecting the children or any other such nonsense.

[bluedawg12]

5. Well, if the same term applies to all and there is only

domestic partnership, then, it seems fair, unless I am missing something.

Frankly it could be the wave of the future. States grant DP and all the legal rights and churches officate at marriage ceremonies.

Separate church and state. I agree the bigots heads will explode, they want exceptionalism.

[NMMNG]

7. Beat them at their own game

:evilgrin:

[bluedawg12]

15. I am very curious about two things:

1.) The response of the rabid right.

2.) The response of the mainstream and if they would view this as devaluing their marriage.

That's why leaving that option of a "religious wedding/marriage ceremony" is a good idea, to help those hung up on the word marriage, and who view it as "sacred," more than legal.

Make it all one neutral sounding legal concept and leave them their rituals.

There was some discussion of this during the recent PropHate8 arguments and I thought one of the Justices floated the idea, even if rhetorically, that getting rid of "marriage" as a legal term and using a different, religiously neutral term for all was an answer.

Like I said, it may be the wave of the future.

[Prophet 451]

12. It's what I've been arguing for years

This way, everyone can get the package of legal rights by registering their union. If anyone wants to have religious rites as well, that's fine. It's optional.

[TechBear_Seattle]

13. Except you have it backwards

Marriages are and, in the United States, have always been a matter of civil law. Religious ceremonies are irrelevant.

What we really need is to strip clergy of their right to officiate at civil marriages and hand that power over to notaries public: witnessing an oath and countersigning signatures is what a notary does, and the legal minimum for any marriage is a simple jurat. Maine, North Carolina and Florida already give notaries this power; I fail to see why other states have not.

[bluedawg12]

14. No I don't have it backward.

We've discussed this many times. States are empowered to provide what are currently called marriage licenses.
The legal rights and duties that accompany what we now call "marriage" derive from the State.

If the term is changed to domestic partnership for all couples, then, that too derives from the State.
Further, the legal term, "marriage" as proposed in this initiative would be changed to DP's in all laws.
State marriage would cease to exist and it would be called DP.

Beyond that, if people want to have a religious ceremony, that could still be called a marriage ceremony, or a wedding, or Harold or any other name. It would have no legal meaning.

Now the other matter, as to who can officiate a DP is something different.

In States like Massachusetts a justice of the peace (JP) performs a "marriage" as it is called today.

JP's are commissioned by the State's governor.

Anyone should have the right to be a JP and I don't see it as possible to restrict that office to non-clergy.

On the other hand, it would be wrong to limit it only to clergy, because we would then be back in the trap of religious objection. No one has limited JP licensure to clergy as far as I know, so it's moot.

Interestingly, in Mass. when marriage rights were extended to all citizen couples, a number of dual hat wearing clergy/JP resigned their office in protest. Tough cheese!

[readmoreoften]

8. Hell Yes. I'm all for it.

Let's go.

[NMMNG]

9. :-)

:hi:

[Cronus Protagonist]

10. EVen the bigots claim they would support this

I surveyed my Mormon neighbors on that topics and they all agreed that it would be OK if we didn't call it marriage, and or if the state stopped calling them marriages too.

Now, what they SAY and what they DO is always likely to mismatch, they are religionists after all, so this initiative will be interesting to watch. A similar one passed in France and nowadays lots of straight couples choose it over marriage. I would expect the same to happen here, so this time the bigots really DO have to try to save marriage. Ironically, if they'd NOT proposed prop 8, marriage would have been strengthened in the secular government, so now they can have some cheese along with their whine.

[Prophet 451]

11. YEAH!

I have been arguing this solution for years, ever since my first year of law school. Only the legal contract of partnership (by whatever name) should grant the legal rights and responsibilities. If you want to get married in a church, go right ahead but you don't get the legal rights until you register and anyone can do that.

I'd imagine there's a few gay-friendly churches in Cali that would happily do the religious part as well.

[Bluenorthwest]

17. I never tire of pointing out..

That there are inclusive and accepting churches all over the nation and world that already do any ceremonial rite a same sex couple might wish to have. First Amendment means they can, always have, and nothing can stop them. Just as other chruches won't, never will and can not be made to do so.
Far more than a 'few' such congregations, and in every state of the Union, not just in sad old California. Churches can now, and will in the future be able to do whatever they want in terms of practice.
First in a church 'hand fasting' I attended for a same sex couple was in the early 80's. The Gov is the entity that is not making them legal. The church thing, that is not under anyone's control.

[Prophet 451]

19. Dude, I'm British

Ergo, I wasn't sure how many gay-friendly churches there are in the US.

[tbyg52]

20. Darn, too late to rec.

I'm all for anything that would work, but I agree with the people who pointed out that the fundies don't operate on logic and consistency.