About Prop 8: Why don't we put OUR OWN amendment on the ballot?

I've been reading a lot of online reactions from so many of my fellow LGBTs and straight allies, regarding the disappointment, anger, fear, distress, et. al. over Proposition 8 passing.

Whether it's on LiveJournal, or people in my LGBT support group, people are understandably really, really DEPRESSED.

Obviously, as a gay male I don't agree with Proposition 8, and I fully desire for same-sex marriage to be legal -- not only in California, but in all 50 states.

However, as I keep hearing people lament over the issue, the same thought keeps going through my head: why don't we, as LGBT people along with our straight allies, put OUR OWN proposition on the ballot in California for either the 2010 midterms or the 2012 General Election?

In the state of California, all you need to do to get a Proposition on the ballot is collect 600,000 legitimate signatures (the Secretary of State's office recommends that groups collect 1,000,000 in case some of the signatures collected cannot be verified).

Why not put an amendment before California voters that would amend our State Constitution to allow for and guarantee a civil union (specified spousal rights) between any two consenting adults who desire one?

It could read something like this:

Amends the California state constitution as follows:

Any two consenting adults, who are legal residents of the state of California, shall have access to formal protections that recognize and designate their domestic parity as mutual beneficiaries through a nondenominational union within state borders. Such a public union shall include, but not be limited to: joint inheritance upon death, reciprocal authority for power-of-attorney, hospital visitation, state income tax benefits and obligations, public health benefits, and other such automatic legal incidents to be facilitated by the state legislature. Private businesses, religious houses-of-worship, and sovereign individuals shall NOT be forced into recognizing these unions. Consenting legal adult residents of California shall not be denied these fundamental, secular privileges and responsibilities based on any non-indictable racial, sexual, ethnic, gender, religious, generational, or socioeconomic differences that exist between the two individuals who exclusively comprise each contractual union.

Obviously, one could simplify the language by condensing it somewhat for the average voter; but how would it be difficult to pass something like this with the general public as long as it didn't involve the word "marriage"?

It would also go a long way toward making the case that people are indeed generally supportive of basic spousal rights for same-sex couples, and it's really just the word "marriage" that's getting in the way (re: all of these battles over state constitutional amendments).

We had a taste of equality sepearate but equal is a farce

But as of right now, the rights included in California's same-sex domestic partnership registry are not protected by the California State Constitution. They are simply part of the law as passed by the legislature; but the California State Constitution says NOTHING about basic rights afforded to two people who want to enter into such a contract.

By convincing the people of California to pass a Constitutional Amendment that would legitimize the rights inherent in a civil union, enshrining it in our Constitution, it will go a long way toward making the case for the courts that same-sex marriage bans need to be overturned -- not just in California, but in other states.

The 2003 California Domestic Partner Act created the legal presumption in this state that domestic partners share all of the legal rights and responsibilities of married couples. It is illegal in California, even after Prop 8, for anyone to extend a right to a heterosexual spouse while denying that right to a homosexual domestic partner. While Prop 8 was a blow, it wasn't the end of the world. The earlier protections are still in place.

Right after the Domestic Partner Act passed, there was an attempt to get it enshrined in the constitution via a proposition, but it failed to get enough signatures to qualify (the backers couldn't get the money to hire enough signature gatherers). This might be a good time to re-attempt that proposition.

I stubbornly support and desire marriage. Anything else doesn't cut it. If I should get precisely the same package that comes with a marriage license that straight couples can get, then why must that package be called something different specially for me?

But like I said, I guess it's better than nothing. I'd vote for it, were I a Californian.

Civil unions and marriage are obviously NOT 100% equal.

I just fear that the Far Right in California will now organize to pass another Constitutional Amendment that would dissolve the domestic partnership registry and ban civil unions in California.

If we head them off at the pass with our own ballot Proposition, not only will it protect California LGBTs but it will provide more ammunition when same-sex marriage is argued in front of the U.S. Supreme Court someday -- to help secure these rights for LGBTs all over the country.

up where I live, some Rethug @-hole had a professional paint job done on his HUGE yellow 4X4 gas-hog dodge pickup with a rifle on the gun rack, with " YES ON PROP 8" in huge lettering on all four sides on his truck, including the engine hood.

Lets see how they feel when we get an improved assault weapons ban passed that bans these guns by exact name, which the 1994 ban on these killer rifles did not do, and thus they could skirt the law.

And NO this isnt flame-bait. I am dead serious about this. I know President-elect Obama wants a new AW ban, so that makes me feel better about our chances.

I am writing letters and calling representatives till hell freezes over.:mad:

1) A proposition to update the proposition process to force a higher degree of voting support in order to alter the state constitution.
- Getting a constitutional ammendment passed in congress nationally requires a 2/3rd's vote to make a change. Should we also be as demanding at the state level to prevent tweaking of our bill of rights wiooy nilly like what happened here, which the 2/3rd's majority requirement is supposed to prevent from happening?
- Do this proposition ONLY after the courts have found a way to throw out prop 8, or you get another proposition that aloters the constitution to take out the prop 8POS. If you put in place this prop before you negate the effects of prop 8 in the constitution, it would be impossible to undo later. But if we get it thrown out, THEN is the time to put such a proposition in place right away.


2) A proposition to keep churches from campaigning for or against propositions explicitly without losing their tax exemptions. Allowing them to do so violates our tenets of separation of church and state, especially if we are giving them tax breaks for being a non-state entity. If a church wants to forego it's tax exemption to campaign on issues like this, then so be it, but we as taxpayes should be able to say NO if they want tax breaks from us.