Fatally-Flawed CA Marriage Amendment Won’t Protect Marriage
by Randy Thomasson, VoteYesMarriage.com – 8/11/05
SACRAMENTO – The proposed California constitutional marriage amendment named the “California Marriage Protection Act” will not protect marriage. Several constitutional attorneys have determined that the deeply flawed initiative sponsored by the Protect Marriage group does not protect marriage rights for a man and a woman, allows homosexual “marriage” by a different name to continue or be created by the Legislature, and is unconstitutionally vague.
“Pro-family Californians will be shocked and disappointed when they find out that the amendment by the Protect Marriage group won’t protect marriage,” said former California Assemblyman Larry Bowler, a proponent of the Voters’ Right to Protect Marriage Initiative sponsored by VoteYesMarriage.com. “Sadly, the Protect Marriage group is inadvertently permitting “˜gay marriage by another name’ by allowing marriage rights to go to unmarried persons. This poorly-drafted initiative won’t protect marriage; it’ll give counterfeit marriage to our children and grandchildren.”
“Despite what people are hearing on the radio and reading in emails and newsletters, nowhere does the text of the “˜Protect Marriage Amendment’ spell out that the rights of marriage are for marriage,” said veteran California pro-family leader Randy Thomasson, one of the organizers of VoteYesMarriage.com. “This is a big mistake, since the courts already require marriage initiatives to specifically protect the rights of marriage in order to prevent “˜gay marriage by another name.’”
The problem is what the Protect Marriage group’s amendment won’t do. The “California Marriage Protection Act” reads as follows: “A marriage between a man and a woman is the only legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this state.” Leading pro-family constitutional attorneys have determined that the California Marriage Protection Act sponsored by ProtectMarriage.com will:
1. Leave marriage a mere word by only protecting the licensure of marriage.
2. Continue “gay marriage by another name” in California. The phrase “legal union” is unconstitutionally vague and includes labor unions, credit unions, business unions, etc. A judge will not be able to read “domestic partnership” into the phrase without banning other partnerships, such as business partnerships. Both overly broad and nonspecific, the “California Marriage Protection Act” means “gay marriage by another name” (AB 205, a California law that went into effect January 1, 2005, awarded virtually all the statutory rights of marriage to same-sex “domestic partners”) will continue to diminish marriage by hijacking marriage rights.
3. Permit the State Legislature to create a new type of “counterfeit marriage.” Because the ProtectMarriage.com amendment does not explicitly protect the “rights of marriage,” the California State Legislature could easily invent a new type of “agreement” under contract law, declare it is not a “union,” and insert into it 100 percent of the rights of marriage. This creation of homosexual “marriage” by yet another name would reduce marriage for a husband and wife to a mere word without exclusive legal value.
4. Allow the courts and the Legislature to force private businesses and organizations to undermine marriage by requiring them to grant full marriage benefits to unmarried persons, despite any moral or religious convictions that marriage is only for one man and one woman. (The intolerant August 1, 2005 ruling of the California Supreme Court would continue forcing business owners to undermine marriage.)
5. Even allow a future Legislature to someday abolish the legal institution of marriage in the name of “equality,” “non-discrimination” and “tolerance” for all. Last year and this year, legislation to abolish marriage has been introduced in New York (A01823 by Assemblymember Deborah Glick).
“The only thing that ultimately matters is the legal effect — what an initiative will accomplish once the courts have looked at it,” said Thomasson. “Despite its good intentions, the amendment by the Protect Marriage group is fatally flawed and legally unsound; it won’t protect marriage rights. California pro-family voters cannot in good conscience support this counterfeit marriage initiative. Fortunately, voters have a choice and can support the true-blue marriage amendment sponsored by VoteYesMarriage.com. The Voters’ Right to Protect Marriage Initiative will protect everything about marriage ““ marriage licenses, marriage rights, and all legal aspects of marriage ““ for one man and one woman.” (The text is posted at www.VoteYesMarriage.com).
The failure to write the “rights of marriage” into Proposition 22 (passed in March 2000) is why California has counterfeit marriage today. The California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, in its April 4, 2005 decision upholding AB 205 (California Family Code, Section 297.5), ruled that the legal status of marriage for only a man and a woman does not prevent unmarried couples from being awarded all the rights of marriage under a different name:
“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)
Leading pro-family constitutional attorneys have signed a public letter endorsing the Voters’ Right to Protect Marriage Initiative as “the only (proposed amendment) that will fully protect marriage for a man and a woman.”
The VoteYesMarriage.com coalition has an August 18 court hearing in Sacramento to challenge Attorney General Bill Lockyer’s inaccurate and prejudicial title and summary before gathering signatures to place the Voters’ Right to Protect Marriage Initiative on the 2006 ballot.
Contact: VoteYesMarriage.com, 916-265-5643