BLOGGERS NEEDED!
Interested in sharing your opinions about progressive politics? Want to highlight the great work of local community groups and individuals? Then join our blog team. Send us an email and we can sign you up. apafp AT apaforprogress DOT org.
I guess it was just a matter of time. The anti-gay-marriage crowd has received the approval from California Secretary of State Debra Bowen to begin collecting signatures to put an initiative on the 2010 ballot that would ban divorce in the state.
John Marcotte now has until March 22, 2010, to collect 694,354 signatures of registered voters in order to get the measure on the ballot next year. The proposal would change the California Constitution to "eliminate the ability of married couples to get divorced in California."
Couples could still get their marriages annulled under the proposal.
Here is the press release from Bowen's office:
Secretary of State Debra Bowen today announced that the proponent of a new initiative may begin collecting petition signatures for his measure.
The Attorney General prepares the legal title and summary that is required to appear on initiative petitions. When the official language is complete, the Attorney General forwards it to the proponent and to the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State then provides calendar deadlines to the proponent and to county elections officials, and the initiative may be circulated for signatures. The Attorney General’s official title and summary for the first measure is as follows:
ELIMINATES THE LAW ALLOWING MARRIED COUPLES TO DIVORCE. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Changes the California Constitution to eliminate the ability of married couples to get divorced in California. Preserves the ability of married couples to seek an annulment. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: Savings to the state of up to hundreds of millions of dollars annually for support of the court system due to the elimination of divorce proceedings. (09-0026.)
The Secretary of State’s tracking number for this measure is 1379 and the Attorney General’s tracking number is 09-0026.
The proponent for this measure, John Marcotte, must collect signatures of 694,354 registered voters – the number equal to 8% of the total votes cast for governor in the 2006 gubernatorial election – in order to qualify it for the ballot. The proponent has 150 days to circulate petitions for this measure, meaning the signatures must be collected by March 22, 2010.
The initiative proponent can be reached at 5228 21st Avenue, Sacramento, California 95820. No phone number was provided.
I guess the other side isn't waiting until 2012 or for poll numbers to show if they can win. Maybe this will push the pro-gay marriage forces into going forward in 2010, too.
APAP is a national network of progressive Asian Americans and allies. We count on the support of our members and friends to continue our work of advancing progressive ideas. Please consider joining today.
Membership is just $20 per year and members receive discounts to events and merchandise.
| User | Points |
|---|---|
| curtis | 1928 |
| ebeh | 1161 |
| Madhuri | 1145 |
| erinjerri | 1074 |
| spamfriedrice | 551 |
| oliveoil | 457 |
| Calvin Prashad | 358 |
| JennyG | 281 |
| jenn | 219 |
| chriswong | 155 |
I'm pretty sure this would be straight up unconstitutional even if passed. There is a fairly settled line of cases from the Supreme Court that indicate that divorce is a part of the fundamental right to marriage. The Court has struck down less stringent limitations on divorce before as an unconstitutional restriction on liberty.
People would think of getting married in California then...
Though it only makes sense, that divorce is one of the civil rights which comes with marriage blows my mind.
#1,401?
Chalk up another right I'm not granted.
Yeah, it does seem weird at first glance. The reasoning behind it is that if you have a right to marry the person of your choice (though we all know that's not REALLY the case in 55 states), you have to be able to get divorced in order to marry another person. And though it's not as strongly embraced by the courts, there is also an argument out there that forcing someone to stay married for the rest of his or her life is also too great a restriction on liberty.
Post new comment