GOV. Schwarzenigger Wants to Eliminate Marriages !!!

[Dan]

California Governor and Attorney General Say Marriage can be Eliminated in Future
Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jerry Brown file legal briefs saying the California Legislature can eliminate marriage rights and get rid of marriage

Contact: VoteYesMarriage.com, 916-265-5643

 

SACRAMENTO, Aug. 27 /Christian Newswire/ -- In legal briefs submitted to the California Supreme Court, which is considering whether to license "same-sex marriages" next year, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown both stated that a future Legislature could abolish marriage and yank marriage rights from a married husband and wife.

 

It was revealed today that Attorney General Jerry Brown [see PDF of AG Jerry Brown's 8/17 brief ] and Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger [See PDF of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's 8/17 brief ] said the following in their August 17 supplemental briefs responding to questions from the California Supreme Court:

Marriage can be abolished in the future by the California Legislature

BROWN: ...the words "marry" and "marriage" have no essential constitutional significance under the California Constitution. Thus, the Legislature could change the name of the legal relationship now known as "marriage" to some other name without any constitutional impediment.

SCHWARZENEGGER: ...The Administration submits that use of the words "marry" and "marriage" is not required by the California Constitution. Thus, the name of the legal relationship now known as "marriage" could be changed.

Marriage rights and marriage benefits for a husband and wife can be eliminated by the California Legislature

BROWN: ...except for this essential ability to choose and declare one's life partner in a reciprocal and binding contractual commitment of mutual support, any of the statutory rights and obligations that are afforded exclusively to married couples in California could be abrogated or eliminated by the Legislature or the electorate for any rational legislative purpose.

SCHWARZENEGGER: …except for the ability to choose and declare one's life partner in a reciprocal commitment of mutual support, any of the statutory rights and obligations that are afforded to married couples in California could be abrogated or eliminated by the Legislature or the electorate for any rational legislative purpose.

"This is proof positive that the VoteYesMarriage.com initiative, which will prevent marriage from being abolished and prevent marriage rights from being eliminated, is absolutely needed to protect the sacred institution of marriage from activist judges and liberal politicians," said Randy Thomasson, an organizer of the VoteYesMarriage.com California Marriage Amendment, which is aiming for the 2008 ballot.

"Protecting the word 'marriage' in the state constitution is useless if the politicians can still get rid of marriage and marriage rights for a man and a woman," concluded Thomasson. "Clearly, the VoteYesMarriage.com amendment, which will override the judges and politicians and preserve everything about marriage for one man and one woman, is the only way to protect this special institution for future generations to respect and enjoy."

I'm Sure he can't wait for his 'Judgement Day'...
 

[angryChineseKahanist]

Is this guy retarded? I think those steroids got to his head.

[newman]

He's an austro-german nazi. They don't believe in marriage. They just want to watch sheiser movies and poop on each other!

[chakma613]

THIS is where america is headed people! On my debate team in school, a left-wing 'yeshiva' in Manhattan came up with this ridiculous topic - it was Polyamority, meaning that a person should be able to marry whomever he/she or heshe wants, without regard for how many wives/husbands that person has. THIS is coming from a Yeshiva, now, a real politician, and I use the term loosely, is promoting a bill to get rid of family life as we've knwon it for 5766 years? Heh, maybe it's because of schwartzenigger's ED or something

[Daniel]

The semantics of this whole issue seem to be very confusing and blurred there the ones in favor of the affirmative proposition of banning gay marriages are using defensive language as in the "Defense of marriage act." Now, it's being taken a step further where those who are in favor of defending gay marriage are going on the offensive in their language. The the semantics of the whole issue is being turned all topsy-turvy and creating a big confusing smoke mirror on both ends.