Waymon Hudson

California Fundies Sue Over Prop 8 Language Change

Filed By Waymon Hudson | July 29, 2008 4:00 PM | comments

Filed in: Fundie Watch, Marriage Equality, Politics, The Movement
Tags: California, constitutional amendment, marriage equality, Prop 8

The supporters of Prop 8, California's constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriage, are worried. California Atty. General Jerry Brown recently changed the measure's ballot title and summary from "to provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California" to the more accurate "eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry." This change (and the addition of a fiscal impact statement) reflects the California Supreme Court's decision to grant full marriage equality and the reality that it would strip away the rights of gay couples.

And the supporters of Prop 8 are pissed.

According to the LA Times:

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

I guess telling the voters exactly what they are voting for isn't on the fundie agenda...

Steve Smith, campaign manager for No on Proposition 8, supports the language clarification:

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. It will be very difficult for them to win the case.

Many analysts agree. The language change from maintain the status quo to stripping away existing rights could add as many as 10 points to the "No" vote.

If the fundies really want the people to decide, why would they oppose the voter's having more information? There is nothing false about the new language- in fact, it is much clearer and provides more information.

And that's the problem for them.

They know that tides against bigotry and homophobia are shifting. They realize that they are slowly losing in the fight for equality and can only maintain their hold using deception and vagueness.

Thank goodness people are starting to call them out on it.

Recent Entries Filed under Fundie Watch:

Leave a comment

We want to know your opinion on this issue! While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising. Repeated violations of the policy will result in revocation of your user account. Please keep in mind that this is our online home; ill-mannered house guests will be shown the door.

Michael Crawford Michael Crawford | July 29, 2008 4:27 PM

There the anti-gay hypocrites go again.

When we appeal to the courts to achieve justice and equal treatment under the law, the anti-gays scream bloody murder about "activist judges."

Now, they are whining to those same judges about how unfair it is that the ballot language better reflects the truth that the anti-gays want to rip marriage away from gay families.

Boo hoo!

Robert Ganshorn Robert Ganshorn | July 29, 2008 11:01 PM

And may they, with wings clipped, fly lower in descending circles, into oblivion.

We should use this tactic on EVERY anti-GLBT initiative.

You have to like Jerry Brown. Creative guy, he has been. Imagine the idea of applying truth in advertising to propositions and ballot initiatives?

Haha. That's too funny.

It's funny, though, because they hate the media and judges for being too liberal, and both institutions have been bent to their whim over the past three decades. It's like, they whined, whined, whined, then they got what they want, and now they can't stop whining.

Of course, the point wasn't to make the courts conservative and then give up. It's to blame all of their stupid losses on someone else so they look less stupid. So when they lose this one, again, expect them to blame activist judges. If they win (unlikely), then they're not going to say a thing.

They are pretty good at the whining thing, these sorts.

Well of course they're pissed. They don't want people to know the truth about the amendment!

inkpeninmd | August 1, 2008 3:21 AM

"You have to like Jerry Brown. Creative guy, he has been. Imagine the idea of applying truth in advertising to propositions and ballot initiatives?"

I have an even better idea, require that signature collectors must be eligible to vote in the election deciding their proposition or voter initiative and that it be a volunteer citizen effort.

Jennifer Kerns and the “Yes on 8? campaign crew invite you to attend their August 14th Open House in Irvine:

Here’s the invite

RSVP [email protected]

I’m wondering if those who’d deny civil rights to others don’t deserve to get their parties crashed?

“Yes on 8? RSVP? Need your advice.