Tuesday, July 26, 2005

And In Hate News . . . .

Everyone's favorite little bigot Randy Thomasson and friends are circulating a measure for signature that would ban gay marriage. Yeah, you're right if you're thinking "wait, didn't they do that already." They did, with Prop. 22 - but that was a statutory amendment. This latest proposal would amend the California Constitution, kicking a leg - the leg - out from under gay marriage supporters' strongest legal argument: that disallowing marriage for some violates our state guaranteed equal rights.

The proposal would also alter domestic rights currently guaranteed in statute, according to the Attorney General's summary - a characterization that Thomasson argues is political posturing on the AG's part. Thomasson's argument in the Chron article is that Lockyer ignores "the chief points . . . the whole issue is the protection of marriage."

See, Milton isn't being fired, they're just fixing the glitch.

Lockyer's title changes the proponent's working title from "The Voters' Right to Protect Marriage Initiative" to "Marriage. Elimination of Domestic Partnership Rights."

To be fair, it is a fairly political name. To be fairer, I'd challenge anyone to come up with a title and summary that wouldn't be political.

And from the Gone But Not Forgotten Files - Pete Knight's widow has submitted a competing amendment that would not only ban gay marriage in California, but would forbid the state from recognizing gay marriages in anyway. Because that whole United States thing was overrated anyway . . . .

In case you forgot, by the way, Pete Knight's son is gay. Paging Dr. Phil, you're needed in studio 22, Dr. Phil to studio 22.

This second proposal came about because its proponents thought Thomasson's was too soft - leaving room for godless sodomite legislators to "confer legal and economic rights to same-sex couples as long as they aren't already reserved for marriage."

To paraphrase the Bible: Jesus weeps. Over this kind of blind hate.

You can check out proposed initiatives on the AG's website here. Here is the text of the "Elimination of Domestic Partnership Rights" proposal (pdf). The second measure is not yet available on the state site.

(Cross-posted at Metroblogging San Francisco.)

3 comments:

Bethany said...

I've already given my copy to CD, but there's a new magazine called RADAR out with its premier issue. The mag is dedicated to politics, gossip and pop culture, basically making it my new bible.

The premier issue, available in a store near you, has an entire article about the gay children of violently anti-gay activists and includes a bit about William J. "Pete" Knight's son.

I get that he served our nation and our state for a long time and that's admirable, but there's a lot not to like about "Pete" (again, his name just cracks me up).

Even in death he's found a way to be hateful. That's stick-to-it-iveness if I've ever seen it. And so, in order to reamin true to his legacy on so many measures in Sacramento, as my own personal way of "honoring" "Pete", I'll be voting a big fat NO.

SteveK said...

I am watching Office Space when I check phoblog and see your subtle reference. Ultra cool.

Jared said...

Having worked on a case involving the CA domestic partnership laws, I don't think it's at all clear that they would be eliminated by this proposed Constitutional amendment.

The issue is the meaning of "bestow statutory rights or incidents of marriage on unmarried persons." If the code sections relating to domestic partnership simply said "A domestic partner shall have all rights accorded to a spouse under other sections of this code" or something similar, then they would clearly be eliminated by this amendment. But that's not what they say.

The code sections for domestic partnership lay out specific benefits of domestic partnership registration, benefits which are scattered over many different sections of the California code. While these tend to mirror the spousal benefits provided under CA law, they are not identical. I think a good appellate attorney would have a decent shot at convincing a court that the correct interpretation of the amendment's language does not prohibit current domestic partnership law.