Sunday, January 17, 2010

Where exactly in the California Constitution does it talk about marriage?

I'm researching in order to make a decision about Prop 8Where exactly in the California Constitution does it talk about marriage?
The constitution wouldn't have to be amended if 4 activist judges hadn't overturned 61% of the vote when we passed prop 22 in year 2000 that defined marriage as between a man and a woman only. This process was undemocratic. One reason I am voting Yes on 8. I believe in democracy.





Other reasons I am voting YES:





Gays are already entitled to the same rights as married couples through domestic partnerships. They receive tax breaks, health benefits, etc, just like married couples.





Legalized gay marriage means pastors and clergy who refuse to marry same sex couples can and will be sued under the law. This has already occurred many times in Massachusetts and Connecticut where gay marriage is legal.





Also, schools and teachers will be forced to teach same sex marriage as moral and legal. This is occurring right now in Massachusetts where elementary school children are given books like “King %26amp; King”, a fairy tale about 2 princes falling in love and “Who’s in a Family”, a book that shows same sex parents along with other types of families.





Just like our children should not be taught to accept Jesus in school, they should not be taught gay marriage as moral at school. These discussions should only happen within the home between parent and child, or between student and student, NOT teacher to student.Where exactly in the California Constitution does it talk about marriage?
It does not mention marriage specifically, but it falls under the equal protection clause.





In their ruling on gay marriage, the court said “the interest in retaining the traditional and well-established definition of marriage” — does not meet constitutional muster. It “cannot properly be viewed as a compelling state interest for purposes of the equal protection clause, or as necessary to serve such an interest.”





Also: ';an individual’s sexual orientation — like a person’s race or gender — does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights.';





And: ';the exclusion of same-sex couples from the designation of marriage clearly is not necessary in order to afford full protection to all of the rights and benefits that currently are enjoyed by married opposite-sex couples.';
Assembly Bill 1102 (AB 1102)





Go Here:





http://info.sen.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?…

No comments:

Post a Comment