Monday, August 11, 2008

Judge Nixes Suit over Wording of California Marriage Proposition: Critics Argue Wording Biases Voters aginst Proposition 8

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/aug/08080810.html

[LifeSite News] 11 Aug 2008--A judge has rejected a lawsuit filed by marriage advocates alleging the California Attorney General's rewording of the November marriage ballot initiative prejudices voters against it.

Judge Timothy Frawley of the Sacramento County Superior Court ruled today that Attorney Gen. Jerry Brown in no way diminished the accuracy or impartiality of Proposition 8 by adding into the attached title and summary that the initiative "eliminates (the) right of same-sex couples to marry."

That phrase made marriage defenders cry foul, since Brown's new language differs from the original proposition 1.1 million Californians petitioned to put on the ballot in November, which would amend the state constitution "to provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

1 comment:

Chino Blanco said...

Considering that ProtectMarriage.com has decided NOT to appeal the ballot language, what chance do you really see for Prop 8 to pass? I just don’t see a majority of Californians voting YES on a proposition titled ELIMINATES RIGHT OF SAME-SEX COUPLES TO MARRY.

Once the churches realize that Prop 8 is an almost guaranteed loser, are they going to do the right thing and let their members know?

If not, what happens after Prop 8 loses 40-60 (or worse), and then the members find out that the churches were privy all along to internal polling that predicted a crushing defeat? Do the members get their money back?

Or do they get stuck paying for ads that were run by a campaign that knew it was going to lose but ran them anyway!