Proponents Say Calif. AG's Actions Undermining Pro-Marriage Ballot Initiative
by Allie Martin and Jody Brown
August 4, 2005
(AgapePress) - A hearing will be held today in a California courtroom in an effort to force that state's attorney general to change the title and wording of a proposed constitutional amendment protecting traditional marriage.
Next year California voters will decide the fate of a proposed constitutional amendment that would recognize marriage as only between a man and a woman. However, pro-family activists are upset over the title and summary assigned by California Attorney General Bill Lockyer for the ballot measure. They argue that he has issued an "inaccurate and prejudicial" ballot title and summary.
According to Liberty Counsel, which has filed a lawsuit in Sacramento challenging the attorney general's actions, Lockyer has failed to carry out his duty to prepare a title and summary that is accurate, that reflects the chief purpose and points, and is not prejudicial toward the proposed amendment. Randy Thomasson, an organizer of the initiative, puts it this way: "True to his liberal bias, but untrue to his constitutional duty, Bill Lockyer has dumped on us an inaccurate and prejudicial paragraph that is anything but impartial and fair as the law requires."
Proponents of the initiative point out the chief points of the measure -- only marriage between one man and one woman is valid or recognized in California; government cannot abolish marriage or diminish it by bestowing the statutory rights of marriage upon unmarried persons; and government cannot require private entities to bestow right or incidents of marriage upon unmarried persons.
But Mat Staver, president of Liberty Counsel, says Lockyer chose wording that does not accurately represent the intent of the amendment and that, in fact, "actually causes confusion and puts it in a negative way." The state attorney general even changed the name of the initiative. The proposed title was "The Voters' Right to Protect Marriage Act." But Lockyer's amendment title is "Marriage. Elimination of Domestic Partnership Rights."
Mat Staver | |
"Instead of saying that it preserves marriage as the union of one man and one woman and prohibits any other kind of marriage that would be outside of that union," Staver explains, "[Lockyer's summary] essentially says that it is an amendment that is designed to eliminate all domestic partnerships and doesn't really talk about the issue of marriage." But because it is a marriage initiative, Staver contends that should be the essence of the ballot title and summary.According to Liberty Counsel, Lockyer's summary uses almost half of the allotted 100 words identifying "rights" that are allegedly taken away from domestic partners -- such as ownership and transfer of property rights, inheritance rights, medical decision rights, and hospital visitation rights. Staver says that is "factually inaccurate."
"While the amendment does prohibit the state of California or its governmental agencies from issuing domestic partnerships, it does not prohibit private contractual rights," the attorney explains. "It does not prohibit private companies from issuing whatever kind of benefits these companies desire. It does not prohibit hospital visitations."
Baptist Press notes that by focusing less on homosexual "marriage" and more on the already existent domestic partnership law, Lockyer's title and summary could make it more difficult to gather signatures in "left-leaning" California, and even more difficult to pass the amendment if it makes it to the ballot. The title and summary will appear on the petitions.
According to Staver, a ruling in the lawsuit could be issued as early as today. The legal challenge was filed on behalf of the group VoteYesMarriage.com.
