?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Marriage rights

Vermont, Iowa, DC, now Maine. Why is Californika so backward? Massive political propaganda efforts by the LDS and Catholic churches.

How do I get a ballot prop to shitcan Prop 8 on the ballot in 2010?? Something like:

"SECTION 1. Title This measure shall be known and may be cited as the "California Marriage Equality Act."

SECTION 2. Change Section 7.5 of Article I of the California Constitution, to read:

SEC. 7.5. All marriages between two consenting adults are equally valid and recognized in California. "

If this won't pass, then remove the word "marriage" from all California state laws and Constitution. If "marriage" is a religious institution to be "protected", then it has no business in US or State law, because of the First Amendment. If it's civil, then religious biases against it are moot.

Comments

( 10 comments — Leave a comment )
ladyqkat
May. 6th, 2009 08:56 pm (UTC)
A movement to ban the word 'marriage' from governmental and legal forms might work.

If marriage, is the pervue of religion, the religious unions should not be recognized by governmental and legal documents. "Civil union" or "domestic partnership/union" would then be the only legally recognized word to describe a committed relationship entered into by legal adults. Those who wish to "marry" within a religious ceremony can, but clergy should no longer have the right to make it a legal binding. That right would be under the auspices of the legal system.

If a clergyperson also passed the legal bar, then, and only then, would they have the capacity to also perform the legal union.
elemirion
May. 6th, 2009 09:02 pm (UTC)
I agree with all of that except the word Two. Marriage between consenting adults would be better wording.
mdlbear
May. 6th, 2009 10:02 pm (UTC)
Exactly what I was going to say.

My poly friends would appreciate it.
ravan
May. 6th, 2009 11:23 pm (UTC)
The reason I made it two is that the tax code would have to be extensively reworked to allow for poly marriages. Two can be done with the existing tax code.

Now, if the special treatment of marriage under the tax code was eliminated, or changed to be more along the lines of partnership and corporate taxes, then it could be done.
elfwreck
May. 7th, 2009 07:08 am (UTC)
The amendment doesn't need the word "two," and leaving it out allows for the possibility of poly marriages later. Marriage is elsewhere defined as involve two people.
ravan
May. 8th, 2009 12:37 am (UTC)
Hmmm, that might work.
fizzyland
May. 6th, 2009 09:36 pm (UTC)
I blame Carrie Prejean, the fundies in OC and basically most people in California not living on the coasts.

Marriage is religious - it has it's origins in Sumerian Marduk-worship. I'm not sure that's relevant today. Marriage still requires a license and is mostly about civil and legal rights.
elfwreck
May. 7th, 2009 07:11 am (UTC)
I don't think marriage is religious, nor that it traces to a single culture.

The union of adults of different families to form a new, society-recognized family unit, is (AFAIK) universal to human cultures, regardless of religion.
fizzyland
May. 7th, 2009 07:43 am (UTC)
True, there is and was marriage or marriage-like traditions everywhere, among any group of people.
siliconshaman
May. 6th, 2009 10:59 pm (UTC)
If I might suggest a better wording:

"SECTION 1. Title This measure shall be known and may be cited as the "California Marriage Equality Act."

SECTION 2. Change Section 7.5 of Article I of the California Constitution, to read:

SEC. 7.5. All marriages between any and all consenting adults are equally valid and recognized in California, and all marriages recognized as legal and valid elsewhere in North America are also ipso facto recognised as legal and valid therein.

Which pretty much covers the bases.
( 10 comments — Leave a comment )

Latest Month

October 2017
S M T W T F S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031    

Tags

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Lilia Ahner