Some key facts about marriage in the United States

1. In 2000, Californians voted to protect marriage for a man and a woman. Proposition 22, a statutory initiative but not a constitutional amendment, read, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

2. From 2001 through 2004, the Democrat-controlled California Legislature systematically awarded all the rights of marriage to homosexual partners, creating "same-sex marriage by another name." This is why today in California homosexual couples have ALL the rights of marriage, and have left marriage between a man and a woman a mere word with no exclusive legal value.

3. In 2005, the California courts ruled that the 14-word text of Proposition 22 only protected the word "marriage" but NOT the rights of marriage. The court said the too-brief text of Prop. 22 did not specifically protect marriage rights, which therefore allowed the State Legislature to pass AB 205, which created Section 297.5 of the Family Code, which awarded virtually all the rights of marriage to homosexual partners:

"Because the plain, unambiguous language of Proposition 22 is concerned only with who is entitled to obtain the status of marriage, and not with the rights and obligations associated with marriage, section 297.5 (which does not grant the legal status of marriage to registered domestic partners) does not add to, or take away from, Proposition 22."

-- Knight v. Superior Court, 128 Cal. App.4th 14, 26 (2005)

That same year, a California judge rationalized that same-sex "marriages" must be legalized, because the Legislature and the Governor had already awarded all the rights and benefits of marriage to homosexuals:

"Simply put, same-sex marriage cannot be prohibited solely because California has always done so before…The idea that marriage-like rights without marriage is adequate smacks of a concept long rejected by the courts: separate but equal."

-- San Francisco Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer (2005)

4. Therefore, because it explicitly states in its text that the rights, incidents, and benefits of marriage are only for a married husband and wife, the VoteYesMarriage.com amendment is the ONLY way to fully and permanently protect marriage for one man and one woman in California . Unlike other proposals, the VoteYesMarriage.com amendment securely protects marriage from all attacks -- past, present, and future.

Backed by pro-family constitutional attorneys, the VoteYesMarriage.com amendment has the clear, legal language that will satisfy the courts that the people have voted to protect marriage rights for one man and one woman, once and for all. It's full and permanent marriage protection.

You can't protect marriage by just protecting the word "marriage"

Unfortunately, some well-intentioned folks mistakenly believe that placing the 14 deficient words of Proposition 22 into the California Constitution will somehow protect marriage. But that's denying the facts about the past, present, and future.

• Fact about the past: Proposition 22 placed these 14 words into the California Family Code: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." Yet this too-short sentence left marriage an empty shell. As the courts have pointed out, Prop. 22 didn't protect marriage rights, marriage benefits, or the moral consciences of businesses, nonprofits and churches. After Proposition 22 passed in 2000, the California Legislature systematically passed a raft of bills that created pseudo-marriages by awarding every marriage right to homosexual couples. The Legislature has forced state contractors and insurance carriers to subsidize homosexual "marriage" benefits. Meanwhile, the California Supreme Court has forced businesses that are open to the public to undermine marriage. Those 14 words of Prop. 22 DID NOT and WILL NOT protect marriage in California, even if they're in the State Constitution.

• Fact about the present: We need no other example for the need to protect everything about marriage -- marriage licenses, marriage rights, and all legal aspects of marriage -- than this year's SB 11. This marriage-destroying bill by San Francisco state senator Carol Migden proposed to award all the rights and benefits of marriage to a man and a woman who are shacking up yet still refuse to get married. Giving everything that belongs to marriage to unmarried individuals would make marriage unpopular and antiquated in the eyes of future generations. SB 11 would functionally abolish marriage. This bill passed the California State Senate this year before stalling in late August, but it will certainly return, as soon as next year. Do you see why we must protect marriage rights and marriage benefits in order to fully and permanently protect marriage?

• Fact about the future: Not only would placing the 14 words of Prop. 22 into the Constitution continue to leave marriage an empty shell devoid of any exclusive legal value, protecting only the word "marriage" will allow the government to someday create a gender-neutral definition of male and female, create polygamous marriages, or completely abolish marriage as a civil institution. Consider that if the government can redefine "parent" and "marriage," there's no stopping them without the clear, specific words of the VoteYesMarriage.com amendment in the California Constitution -- plain, straight-forward language that will protect EVERYTHING about marriage and permit ZERO wiggle-room for judges. This is why spending time and money to protect only the word "marriage," or placing the 14 deficient words of Prop. 22 into the California Constitution, is a complete waste of resources.

By Galina Bondar

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

[01/03/2008]

Print Version