Box Turtle Bulletin

Box Turtle BulletinNews, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric
“Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife…”
This article can be found at:
Latest Posts

CA Anti-Marriage Amendment Certified for Ballot

Jim Burroway

June 3rd, 2008

What we reported yesterday is now official. California’s Secretary of State Debra Bowen has annouunced that the proposed anti-marriage constitutional amendment has enough valid signatures to appear on the November ballot.

Comments

POST COMMENT | COMMENT RSS 2.0 | TRACKBACK URL

cooner
June 3rd, 2008 | LINK

Can someone here knowledgeable in law clear this up … Is it true that a California voter initiative can AMEND THE CONSTITUTION with a mere simple majority vote?

That seems really weird … It seems like most other states set the bar to amend the constitution higher, either by some sort of supermajority (60%, 2/3rds, etc.) or use some method of allowing a cooling-off and consideration period, like requiring votes for two consecutive years.

Then again, California often seems to be different, sometimes in a good way, sometimes bad.

werdna
June 3rd, 2008 | LINK

The number of signatures required to qualify an initiative which amends the constitution is a bit higher than for one which merely creates a statute, but a simple majority is all that’s required for either kind of initiative to pass.

Yes, it’s kind of nuts. Living most of my life in California I was constantly amazed at the kind of stuff that we were constantly asked to vote on. I’m with Patt Morrison on this one.

Timothy Kincaid
June 3rd, 2008 | LINK

Cooner,

To amend the constitution it requires signatures of 8% of the last gubernatorial voters and a majority vote. But to REVISE the constitution it requires another process altogether.

There is some argument that removing the restrictions that all persons are equal under the law is not an amendment but is rather a revision. I don’t know if that argument will be heard or considered.

cooner
June 4th, 2008 | LINK

Thanks, guys. And good luck this fall. We hope to move back to California, maybe sooner that we thought, but I doubt I’ll be back in time for the election this fall.

Todd
June 4th, 2008 | LINK

I have a question I hope someone can help answer as I am not a legal scholar by any means.

While we need to fight having discrimination added to the California constitution, the court decision in favor of equality including the name marriage and making sexual orientation a suspect classification that if the amendment passes the court decision would still stand but need to be interpreted differently. That is , since it determined that the State could not discriminate in calling the institutions “marriage” amd “Domestic partnerships”, woudl the amendment if it passes, force the State to only recognize Domestic Partnerships for all couple leaving Marriage only a religious institution. I need to re-read the court’s decision, but it seems that the wording left it open to State recognized marriage for all or marriage for none and went with marriage for all for the sake of simplicity.

The amendment won’t change the courts ruling only limit marriage to a man and a woman so I was just wondering…

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required)
(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.