Click the link on “Two Classes” above. The article quoted David Cruz but I believe that he’s not alone.

So, if passed this would make straight and gay marriage equal under the law.

Here’s the official website for The Domestic Partnership Initiative:

http://www.dompar.org/

Facebook:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=42833687407&ref=nf

The GLAD case is very important, so support their efforts if you can.

Oh, and think about this: When that case goes to court, we will see the extent to which the Obama Justice Department defends (or does not defend) DOMA.

In the Oxford Concise Dictionary, the word “sanctity” is defined as:

sanctity
• noun (pl. sanctities) 1 holiness; saintliness.

These indicate that, while borrowed for other usages, the word is essentially a religious one . . . as is “marriage” in the minds of most opponents of same-sex “marriage”.

I am reminded that the Constitution of the United States of America gives:

“…Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”.

The laws of our land are somewhat schizophrenic, in that they do not always keep pace with logic and clarity. Many humorous and not-so-humorous examples can come to mind.

In this instance, it seems necessary to consider that “marriage”, where it is understood as an extension of ones’ personal religious views is logically protected by a Constitutionally-mandated blindness on the part of the U.S. Government. Not all religions, not even all sects of Christianity, view marriage as a sacrament or sacred activity.

I find a way out of the present tangle of religion and government by looking at the solution presented by New Zealand.

In New Zealand, “marriage”, like a bris, baptism or whatever religious ritual, does NOT of necessity exist in governmental law or parlance. Instead, they mandated a grandfathering of all marriages prior to their legislation into “Civil Partnerships” as far as the law was concerned. They systematically went through all their old marriage laws and merely substituted the words “Civil Partnership” wherever and whenever the word “marriage” occurred, then expanded the requiremnts to allow for said Civil Partnerships to include same-sex relationships. In New Zealand thought, if any legal Civil Partners wish to have a “marriage” ceremony, it is the purview of their private religious group to oversee such a private religious activity. . . and is in no way the place of the Government to pay it any attention whatsoever.

I think that we could take a page from the Kiwis on this matter.

Therefore forcing the change of the way the State’s Constitution changed. It will take a revision, not an amendment to change the way it is changed. Which would be more work for the legislature to plan correctly. Each method the legislature would come up with will face a court challenge as there isn’t a clear method written in Califoria’s Constitution. As of now, there are two ways, revision or amendment. If the court upholds prop H8, this sets the rules for changing the complete constitution which has the strong posibilty of stripping away many other rights.

Once it is ruled that a simple majority, 50% + 1 can remove rights from a minority, changing the constitution after that precedent has been set, changing the constitution to make it harder to remove rights from another minority would violate the precedent already set.

I hope what I am saying makes sense. It took me a bit before I got what they were saying.

I know the AG tried to argue that prop H8 was an amendment, not a revision, but from all the people I have talked to say he was dead wrong.

I am hoping the court rules to toss prop H8 out and it is plain wrong, but to hear the argument from my friends gives me hope.