Calif. Attorney General changes wording to proposed marriage amendment-
"Original state wording: Amends the California Constitution to provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: The measure would have no fiscal effect on state or local governments. This is because there would be no change to the manner in which marriages are currently recognized by the state. (Initiative 07-0068.) (Full Text)
Jerry Brown revision: Changes California Constitution to eliminate right of same-sex couples to marry. Provides that only a marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. Fiscal Impact: Over the next few years, potential revenue loss, mainly sales taxes, totaling in the several tens of millions of dollars, to state and local governments. In the long run, likely little fiscal impact to state and local governments."
Calif. amend. suit claims 'prejudicial' ballot-"Supporters of a proposed constitutional marriage amendment in California filed suit against the state attorney general July 29, charging that a new ballot title and summary is inflammatory and could lead voters to oppose the measure...Prior to the California Supreme Court's May 15 decision that legalized "gay marriage," the ballot title read, "Limit on Marriage," and the first sentence of the summary read, "Amends the California Constitution to provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."...The title and summary -- the language voters see on the ballot when entering the voting booth -- was changed recently by California Attorney General Jerry Brown. A Democrat, Brown changed the title to read, "Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry" and the first sentence of the summary to read, "Changes California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry." The new ballot summary also says the amendment's fiscal impact would result in "potential revenue loss, mainly sales taxes, totaling in the several tens of millions of dollars" to state and local governments over the next few years....Meanwhile, opponents of Proposition 8 also have filed a lawsuit, seeking to change wording in the California ballot pamphlet, a government-printed pamphlet mailed to every registered voter that provides arguments by supporters and opponents of each initiative. Opponents of Proposition 8 want to see eliminated an assertion by supporters that "gay marriage" would impact what is taught in kindergarten, The Chronicle reported...."In health education classes, state law requires teachers to instruct children as young as kindergarteners about marriage," the language submitted by Proposition 8 supporters states. "If the gay marriage ruling is not overturned, TEACHERS WILL BE REQUIRED to teach young children there is no difference between gay marriage and traditional marriage. We should not accept a court decision that results in public schools teaching our kids that gay marriage is okay." Such an argument is viewed as common sense by many conservatives, but nevertheless hit a nerve among Proposition 8 opponents. In their written rebuttal -- each side gets a chance to rebut the other side's arguments in the pamphlet -- Proposition 8 opponents wrote, "NO CHILD CAN BE FORCED, AGAINST THE WILL OF THEIR PARENTS, TO BE TAUGHT ANYTHING about health and families issues. CALIFORNIA LAW PROHIBITS IT. And NOTHING IN STATE LAW REQUIRES THE MENTION OF MARRIAGE IN KINDERGARTEN!" But even if Proposition 8 opponents succeed in changing the ballot pamphlet, supporters still will make the argument as part of their public campaign. The pro-Proposition 8 website (at ProtectMarriage.com) currently states that "public schools are already required to teach the role of marriage in society as part of the curriculum" and that if Proposition 8 isn't passed, "schools will now be required to teach students that gay marriage is the same as traditional marriage, starting with kindergarteners."
Gay-marriage opponents decry new Prop. 8 language as 'inflammatory'-"Marriage's research has found that never in the 50-year history of statewide ballot measures has the attorney general used an active verb like "eliminates" in the title of a ballot measure, Kerns said. Proposition 8 supporters are seeking an expedited hearing in Superior Court in Sacramento, as soon as this week, to challenge the attorney general's title and summary. The attorney general's office plans to defend the ballot language in court. "We carried out our statutory duty to accurately summarize the measure," said Gareth Lacy, Brown's spokesman. "In this case, we take into account an extremely important Supreme Court decision that affirms the right to same-sex marriage."...One veteran political observer charged that Brown's possible run for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination was a factor in the ballot language. "It's clear to me that what Jerry Brown is trying to do is deliver for a political group that is crucial to his election for governor," said Tony Quinn, a political analyst with historic ties to Republicans who called Brown's phrasing "unethical." "The title ought to be 'Marriage,' or 'Rules Regarding Marriage,' - something that is clearly neutral in its language," Quinn said. "If you had a very conservative attorney general and he had a title to Proposition 4" - a constitutional amendment that would require a waiting period before the termination of a minor's pregnancy - "that said, 'Saves the Lives of the Unborn,' or something like that, you'd have howling from the liberal side."
'Gay' marriage battle goes to kindergarten-"The California Education Code clearly states that schools would be required to provide instruction to children as young as kindergartners that same-sex marriage is the same as traditional marriage," Kerns told WND. "The code specifically states that the legal and financial aspects and responsibilities of marriage must be taught."
November 4, 2008, General Election Official Voter Information Guide - Public Display-Scroll down to Propisition 8.
Panel Discussion on California Same-sex Marriage: The Impact on Religious Liberty-Excellent must see hour and a half video or audio for downloading of a conservative panel and one dissenter as they discuss this issue before packed media and answer questions afterwards.
Also, see Marriage Amendment/African-Americans were determining factor for Bush in 2004? Is this why liberal media silent about this issue? and Dobson may endorse McCain depending on VP. Obama making no headway amongst Evangelicals and actually doing worse then Kerry and scroll down to California to see more on this issue like "The California Supreme Court on Thursday rejected efforts by homosexual advocacy groups to remove Proposition 8 from the November ballot."
For Obama and McCain and their position on this amendment see, Obama's Divisive Faith Based Initiative/Update on NM Photography case/www.BoycottMcDonalds.com/Arizona Marriage Amendment and McCain under sub heading McCain vs Obama on state Marriage Amendments
Video Report Update on Marriage Amendments
Facing NYCLU Lawsuit, Insurance Company Agrees to Provide Spousal Benefits to Married Same-Sex Couples-"Less than three weeks after the New York Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit against Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Western New York for denying spousal health care benefits to a validly married lesbian couple, the health insurance company has announced it will begin covering married same-sex couples"