Image: Yes! on Equality
SACRAMENTO — California came one step closer to voting for a third time on the issue of same-sex unions with the approval Tuesday of a "Yes! on Equality" petition.
Secretary of State Debra Bowen yesterday announced that Charles Lowe, who is the proponent of the new initiative aimed at 2010 election day voters, may begin collecting petition signatures for his 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 proponent and to the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State then provides calendar deadlines to the proponent and to county elections officials, and the initiative may be circulated for signatures.
Provisions are being proposed in the new initiative to counter the traditional marriage supporters claim that the legalization of same-sex marriage would infuse the state's public schools with a gay agenda. Also, the initiative states that clergy would not be required "to perform a service or duty inconsistent with his or her faith."
The Attorney General’s official title and summary for the measure is as follows:
REINSTATES RIGHT OF SAME-SEX COUPLES TO MARRY. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
Repeals the current provision in California’s Constitution that states only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. Provides that the initiative is not intended, and shall not be interpreted, to modify or change the curriculum in any school. Clarifies that the initiative is not intended, and shall not be interpreted, to mandate or require clergy of any church or religious institution to perform a service or duty inconsistent with his or her faith. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: Over the long run, this measure would likely have little fiscal impact on state and local governments. (09-0011.)
As the proponent for Yes! on Equality, Lowe 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 proponent has 150 days to circulate petitions for this measure, meaning the signatures must be collected by November 19, 2009.
The Yes! on Equality focus as outlined on the campaign Website states:
1) Provide a timely, basic tool to advance equality in California by gathering signatures for a 2010 ballot initiative.
2) Help established progressive networks and community organizations to motivate a diverse network of interested volunteers around grassroots efforts to broaden equality in California.
A response from the Yes on 8: Protect Marriage campaign has not been issued as of the time of article publication.
Sources: Lavendar Newswire, Yes! on Equality
Comments
Alex, I have to commend you for putting together a balanced news article here without inserting your own opinion. From past coverage it is clear that you support "traditional marriage", but you represented the information in a balanced way. Thank you.
I just hope that other conservative reporters will show as much journalistic integrity when reporting the facts, and not leave things our or include ridiculous claims like they often tend to do.
I look forward to this initiative being on the ballot. It is time that Californians have an honest discussion and decision on this, not one filled with scare tactics (ie - liberals want to make your kids gay!) or false statements (ie - schools/churches will be forced to adopt pro-gay practices).
3rd vote? This sounds to me as though the homosexuals are trying to keep pressing the issue until we vote yes just to stop them from wasting any more taxpayer money. I hope the vote is no again, but where will it all end?
Doesn't anyone learn from history? I don't want our civilization to go the way of Sodom and Gomorrah.
I'm puzzled by your comments: you appear to oppose Prop 8, yet write that you hope for an honest discussion without false statements, and then use schools as an example. Those against Prop 8 claimed schools would not be affected while the State Sect'y of Education's website had the information explaining how curriculum in the preponderance of our schools would be. Did you intend to deny this or to say that next time the opponents of marriage won't make false statements?
@Simon...
Thanks much!
Sincerely,
Alex
@Simon...add 1
BTW Conversely, you will see a liberal bias on the reporting of this issue.
Example: I've seen "hate" correlated with support of traditional marriage as if it is part of the definition of a traditional marriage supporter.
Also, you notice the terminology I use as opposed to "anti-gay rights" person. It is inaccurate to say that a supporter of traditional marriage is anti-gay rights. The majority support same-sex union rights that would equal rights for married couples.
Stan, the anti-abortion crowd has placed an initiative on the ballot three times to force parental notification on teenage girls who want an abortion. It's been rejected every time. Are you complaining just as much about that? I hope so. If not, then I guess you just like to pick on gay people.
Alex, let's agree to leave out the ... less desirable aspects of both sides! Radical writers on the right make anti-gay statements, and radical writers on the left over-hype any criticism.
The message from the CA Supreme Court was clear - no religious implications. The only thing the schools were working through - but not set on - was how to increase tolerance for kids with same sex parents.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!