July 29, 2008

California: Anti-Equality Crybabies Threaten to Sue Over More Accurate Prop 8 Wording

The Bigot Brigades behind Proposition 8 take the usual tack of labeling their anti-equality efforts as “pro-marriage,” and “protecting marriage” — when, in fact, they are attempting to destroy marriage, and strip marriage protection.

Last week, the title and wording of Proposition 8 were corrected to accurately reflect its purpose:

And now, to no one’s surprise, the whiny babies are going to court in an attempt to mask the truth:

Opponents of gay marriage say they’ll sue over changed wording in Proposition 8

Supporters of Proposition 8, the proposed state constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage, said they would file suit today to block a change made by California Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown to the language of the measure’s ballot title and summary.

Petitions circulated to qualify the initiative for the ballot said the measure would amend the state Constitution “to provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”

In a move made public last week and applauded by same-sex marriage proponents, the attorney general’s office changed the language to say that Proposition 8 seeks to “eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry.”

Jennifer Kerns, spokeswoman for the Protect Marriage coalition, called the new language “inherently argumentative” and said it could “prejudice voters against the initiative.”

That’s rich, Kerns! The new language is “inherently argumentative” only when it reflects your anti-marriage agenda! No doubt you’d be happiest if Prop 8 was titled: “Protect the Assault on Good, Patriotic Christians from the Radical Homosexual Agenda to Recruit Your Tiny Children, Brainwash Your Wife into Leaving You for a Lesbian Witch, and Destroy Your Manhood by Sneaking into Your Bedroom and Raping You in Your Sleep, Just Like Popo Bawa.”

Proponents of the measure said they want voters to see ballot language similar to what was on the petitions that began circulating last fall. …

You mean, so the summary is nothing more than “Amends the California Constitution to provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California,” period, and doesn’t mention the part about taking eliminating a right that’s already been established?

Yeah, I figured that’s what you meant.

On the other side, Steve Smith, campaign manager for No on Proposition 8, applauded the language change.

“What Proposition 8 would do is eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry, which is exactly what the attorney general put in the title of the measure,” he said. “It will be very difficult for them to win the case.”

Political analysts on both sides suggest that the language change will make passage of the initiative more difficult, noting that voters might be more reluctant to pass a measure that makes clear it is taking away existing rights.

But that is exactly what Prop 8 would do: take away existing rights.

The dust-up … has raised suspicion in some circles that Brown, a possible candidate for governor in 2010, was influenced by politics. …

Gareth Lacy, a spokesman for the attorney general, denied that there was any political motivation for the move.

Instead, he said, the change was necessary because of the dramatic turn of events that have taken place since the petitions were circulated: namely that the California Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage and thousands of gay couples have since wed.

“The title and summary accurately reflect the measure,” Lacy said.

He noted that language in titles and summaries often changes between the time a measure is circulated for signatures and when it appears on the ballot.

In another change, the revised language predicts a loss to state and local governments of tens of millions of dollars in sales tax revenues over the next few years if the measure passes. …

So? In my nearly 30 years of voting in California, I can’t remember one, single, solitary ballot measure that didn’t summarize the fiscal impact on the state. Not a one.

Buncha crybabies. Buncha hateful crybabies.

Posted by: Sapphocrat

Permalink | |