Comparing a strong marriage amendment to a very weak one

In the last few years, there have been two dominant ideas about how to protect marriage in California. One proposal is to protect only the word "marriage" by placing the 14 words of Proposition 22 into the California State Constitution. Those words, which sound good but don't do much, are "Only marriage between a man and woman are valid or recognized in California." Yet this phrase will not protect marriage because it's full of holes as has already been shown.

In contrast, the rock-solid VoteYesMarriage.com amendment would protect EVERYTHING about marriage -- marriage licenses, marriage rights, and all legal aspects of marriage -- for only one man and one woman. VoteYesMarriage.com protects marriage past, present, and future.

Here are the clear, precise, and important words that VoteYesMarriage.com would place into the California State Constitution:

Only marriage between one man and one woman is valid or recognized in California, whether contracted in this state or elsewhere. A man is an adult male human being who possesses at least one inherited Y chromosome, and a woman is an adult female human being who does not possess an inherited Y chromosome. Neither the Legislature nor any court, government institution, government agency, initiative statute, local government, or government official shall abolish the civil institution of marriage between one man and one woman, or decrease statutory rights, incidents, or employee benefits of marriage shared by one man and one woman, or require private entities to offer or provide rights, incidents, or benefits of marriage to unmarried individuals, or bestow statutory rights, incidents, or employee benefits of marriage on unmarried individuals. Any public act, record, or judicial proceeding, from within this state or another jurisdiction, that violates this section is void and unenforceable.

* Even if the word "marriage" were placed into the California State Constitution, that would not prohibit the California Legislature from statutorily redefining "man" and "woman" as anything-goes "gender." It wouldn't stop politicians from allowing polygamous marriages because "a man" and "a woman" do not define a clear one man/one woman numerical cap. And it certainly wouldn't prevent the California Legislature from eventually abolishing marriage as a civil institution, as is being proposed in New York State. Consider California's gender-bending definition already in the state's Penal, Civil, Government, and Education codes: "Gender" means sex, and includes a person's gender identity and gender related appearance and behavior whether or not stereotypically associated with the person's assigned sex at birth. Is this the future definition of bride and groom?

By Galina Bondar

New iPad POLL! VOTE NOW! Will you buy new iPad?

[01/03/2008]

Print Version