Schwarzenegger and Jerry Brown: Calif. could change the name of "marriage".Fundy activists atwitter!

[Bluebear]

California Governor and Attorney General Say Marriage can be Eliminated in Future
Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jerry Brown file legal briefs saying the California Legislature can eliminate marriage rights and get rid of marriage


Contact: VoteYesMarriage.com, 916-265-5643



SACRAMENTO, Aug. 27 /Christian Newswire/ -- 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.



It was revealed today that Attorney General Jerry Brown and Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger said the following in their August 17 supplemental briefs responding to questions from the California Supreme Court:

Marriage can be abolished in the future by the California Legislature

BROWN: ...the words "marry" and "marriage" have no essential constitutional significance under the California Constitution. Thus, the Legislature could change the name of the legal relationship now known as "marriage" to some other name without any constitutional impediment.

SCHWARZENEGGER: ...The Administration submits that use of the words "marry" and "marriage" is not required by the California Constitution. Thus, the name of the legal relationship now known as "marriage" could be changed.

Marriage rights and marriage benefits for a husband and wife can be eliminated by the California Legislature

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

SCHWARZENEGGER: …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.

"This is proof positive that the VoteYesMarriage.com initiative, which will prevent marriage from being abolished and prevent marriage rights from being eliminated, is absolutely needed to protect the sacred institution of marriage from activist judges and liberal politicians," said Randy Thomasson, an organizer of the VoteYesMarriage.com California Marriage Amendment, which is aiming for the 2008 ballot.

"Protecting the word 'marriage' in the state constitution is useless if the politicians can still get rid of marriage and marriage rights for a man and a woman," concluded Thomasson. "Clearly, the VoteYesMarriage.com amendment, which will override the judges and politicians and preserve everything about marriage for one man and one woman, is the only way to protect this special institution for future generations to respect and enjoy."

http://www.earnedmedia.org/vym0827.htm

[MADem]

1. Well, I agree with them. I think "marriage" is a religious contractual relationship.

With the emphasis on RELIGION. I think anything sanctioned by the government is a civil union. If you go to the courthouse to get hitched, I think they should call that a civil union. If you go to the preacher, that's a marriage.

And I really think they oughta make that marriage thing ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN--for fucking EVER. You do it once, you can't do it again. You're stuck. If you did it more than once, you're a polygamist, and scorned!!

I'm being slightly sarcastic here, but not totally. This sort of approach, though, certainly would get some of these "serial marrying" muthaswho want to deny rights to others off their high horses.

[Bill McBlueState]

2. you mean, you think that's what it *should* be

Because when I got married in Ohio, the state issued a marriage license, not a civil union license. The states do currently sanction marriage, regardless of the religious connotations some may choose to give the arrangement.

[MADem]

5. That's what I meant. Just my opinion of it, and we know what that means! NT

[gatorboy]

6. What happens if it's a minister that's ordained online?

Perhaps with no religious preference?

[MADem]

7. Who cares--he's a "word of God" type, he's gotta be affiliated with SOME outfit

Even if it's the Church of Let Me Take Your Money Fool, Online...

He gave some clowns money to get a piece of paper, after all.

[gatorboy]

11. Nope. No affiliation.

And it's free, by the way. ;) Just ask my wife, Rev. Sandy. :)

[Bill McBlueState]

3. the bigot's comments are telling

Clearly, the VoteYesMarriage.com amendment, which will override the judges and politicians and preserve everything about marriage for one man and one woman, is the only way to protect this special institution for future generations to respect and enjoy.

Traditional Christians are not interested in the plan often floated on DU, where the government stops using the term "marriage" and makes civil unions available to everyone. They want marriage for opposite-sex couples and absolutely nothing for everyone else. We need to push for marriage equality, not for some compromise that the other side won't even consider.

on edit: whoops, typo

[Bluebear]

4. 'and absolutely nothing for everyone else.' - exactly.

"I got mine and screw you mentality."

[MADem]

9. Hoist the bastard's on their own petard--force them to STAY in those One Man-One Woman marriages

Till DEATH do they part!!! No divorce!! And none of that 'living apart' like the Hasterts do, either!!! They need to wallow in their misery, together, united, forever, and ever, AMEN!!!!

Someone oughta amend their little amendment to include that proviso! I can imagine how few votes it would get in that instance!

[Cleita]

8. I guess we could always call it mate bonding.

But why limit it to just couples? There could be all kinds of legal mate bonding agreements even group mate bondings. The possibilities make me dizzy. Of course there has to be provisions to protect children. I say they go with the mother and take her name unless there is an adoptive parent willing to take on the responsibility of mother. Then the state pays the mother a stipend every month to raise her children, the money of course, to be deducted percentagewise from potential sperm donors. This would eliminate the child support legal battles I presume.

Of course it would still be up to the mother to persuade willing mates to ante up any extra for private schools, designer clothes and all the other additional expenses of child rearing other than the basics for her children.

[IndianaJones]

12. uhhh...what? nt.

[frogcycle]

10. gee, I wonder if they read the many posts I have

been making to that effect over the past couple of years?

[Booster]

13. I have always said if the word marriage could be taken out of the

equation, then the fundies wouldn't have an argument against gays getting "married". I've always tried to get my gay friends to accept civil unions as the closest thing they could get to without being "married". However, I have to give these two guys credit for something I never thought of and that's calling ALL marriages something else, like civil unions - no "marriage" - no argument. Bravo to Jerry and Arnold.

[Bill McBlueState]

15. read the end of the post

Randy Thomasson, a fundamentalist, makes it quite clear that his people aren't going to accept any solution that takes the legal term "marriage" away from opposite-sex couples.

I say we stop trying to craft compromises that the fundamentalists won't like anyway, and instead fight for what's right -- marriage equality.

[Booster]

16. Nah. Threaten to take away their "marriage" rights and see how

fast they accept gay marriages. Hit them in the pocket books and they all of a sudden have a revelation from God.

[Trillo]

14. Could they also disallow corporations from "marrying" each other?

I mean, is it also on the radar screen 'for a future legislature'? Of course, it is not formally regarded as "marriage", I think there are various legal terms applied: buy out, merger, etc., but they mean the same thing to a corporation as "marriage" does to two humans.

[davhill]

17. What has the government to do with marriage anyway

It was only to transmit medieval property rights across generations that the government got into the marriage business. There are other ways of doing that. What other business is it of the government who has sex with whom. Heterosexuals are dispensing with marriage at a great rate. For those believers who make a vow to God a religious ceremony is appropriate, otherwise is is just between the two themselves.