This afternoon the Associated Press reported that Proposition 8’s ballot description has been changed—and traditional marriage supporters should be up in arms over this political ploy. Initially, Prop. 8 was described as limiting marriage to a man and a woman. Readers will be shocked to learn that Prop. 8 is now officially described as “a constitutional change to eliminate the right of same sex couples to marry.” According to Secretary of State Debra Bowen’s office, the description change came as the result of the recent California Supreme Court ruling overturning Proposition 22.
This flimsy excuse for so blatantly siding with Prop. 8 opposition is ludicrous. The so-called “right” of same-sex couples to marry was created by the California Supreme Court just two months ago and voters have yet to decide whether they will participate in this judicial charade. This biased description of Prop. 8 demonstrates the challenge supporters will face this election—not just in the campaign, but from a supposedly-unbiased government.
The new Prop. 8 description also warns voters that California could lose millions in revenue if the proposition is approved. This kind of anti-Prop. 8 language derseves an in-kind donation to the anti-Prop. 8 campaign! It will be fascinating to see what statistics and research opponents could possibly cite in claiming the state will miss so much speculative revenue.
There’s not even an attempt to appear nonpartisan in the title and summary for most of these ballot measures. Take, for example, Proposition 1’s title: “Safe, Reliable High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act for the 21st Century.” With all the glowing adjectives, this sounds more like an advertising slogan than a nonpartisan, objective description of the measure.
Voters should be very concerned that our ballot measures are subject to such political games.
[Note: My original post on this topic pinned blame for the Prop. 8 change on Secretary of State Debra Bowen. In fact, legal anaysis and language for initiatives and ballot measures come from Attorney General Jerry Brown’s office. In light of this fact, our outrage and frustration would probably be better directed to the AG, not the SOS’s office.]
July 27th, 2008 at 12:00 am
This title does more accurately reflect what the Proposition will do to the citizens of California.
July 27th, 2008 at 12:00 am
4,600,000 Californians voted to define marriage as the Union of
1 man and 1 woman.
Then…..4 arrogant judges threw out those 4 million votes.
So, whose “Rights” were violated, Ms. Bowen?
As Secretary of State, you talk a lot about voters rights, but
somehow that concern does not translate to Prop. 22 (2000)
and to Prop. 8 (2008).
July 27th, 2008 at 12:00 am
So whats different from overthrowing Prop 14 in 1964, and overturning Prop 22 today? Just because its placed on the ballot does not mean it is the final law of the land.
Were the rights of the people violated because the US Supreme Court overturned Prop 14 in 1967?
July 28th, 2008 at 12:00 am
“a constitutional change to eliminate the right of same sex couples to marry.”
Same sex couples will not have rights eliminated… they can get married any time they want; however, it must be an actual marriage, that is a union between one man and one woman. No one’s rights are being eliminated.