Judge Upholds Redefined, Biased California Prop 8 Marriage Amendment Language

Pro-family attorneys to challenge ruling on AG Jerry Brown’s biased summary language

jerry_brown-2.jpgCalifornia Attorney General Jerry Brown redefined the state’s pro-traditional marriage amendment description as taking away people’s rights — even though the so-called “right” to “same-sex marriage” as created by the state’s high court will be only a few months old when voters go to the polls in in November.

From the news site OneNewsNow of the American Family Association:

Judge upholds redefined Prop. 8 ballot language

By Jeff Johnson – OneNewsNow – 8/8/2008
Click HERE to listen to the audio story on OneNewsNow

Pro-family attorneys are vowing to go back to court to get biased, pro-homosexual language removed from the ballot title and summary for the California marriage protection amendment.

The amendment states that “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” But somehow, Attorney General Jerry Brown reinterpreted that as eliminating “the right of same-sex couples to marry.” Timothy Chandler, legal counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), was in Superior Court in California Thursday arguing that Brown’s editorializing is illegal.

“The issue before the voters is whether or not California should define marriage as between one man and one woman,” Chandler explains. “And rather than presenting it that way to the voters, the attorney general got political with it.”

Instead of providing a neutral and unbiased ballot title and summary, says the ADF attorney, Brown bowed to “political pressure” and “gave a biased and prejudicial summary” — in effect failing to follow his obligation under state law. “The attorney general is required by law to provide an objective summary of what the proposition would do to the law,” Chandler explains.

But the Superior Court disagreed Friday, ruling that Brown was within his rights to define the amendment as taking away rights, even though those alleged rights were only recently created by the California Supreme Court.

“In this case, the Attorney General did not abuse his discretion in concluding that the chief purpose and effect of the initiative is to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry, even if the initiative also has other purposes and effects,” wrote Judge Timothy Frawley. “The Attorney General’s title is an accurate statement of the primary purpose and effect of the measure. It is not argumentative or inherently prejudicial.”

The original ballot title described the amendment as a change to the state constitution that would “provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” Chandler hopes a three-judge panel of the California Appellate Court will overturn Frawley’s decision.

“This is an emergency petition to try to get the court to order the attorney general to provide a [sic] unbiased ballot title and summary before the ballots are begun to be printed here in California, which starts next week,” says Chandler.

Attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund and ProtectMarriage.com say they intend to file the appeal immediately.

This article was posted on Friday, August 8th, 2008 at 5:01 pm and is filed under "Civil Unions" & "Gay Marriage", "Civil Unions" & "Gay Marriage", California, Candidates & Elected Officials, Court Decisions & Judges, Democrat Party, Gay Rights vs. Others' Rights, Government Promotion, News. You can follow any updates to this article through the RSS 2.0 feed.

Support Americans for Truth about Homosexuality

Americans For Truth
P.O. Box 340743
Columbus, OH 43234

Peter's Lifesite News Articles'

Subscribe to our Newsletter

Peter's Lifesite News Articles'

Americans for Truth Radio Hour

Americans for Truth Academy

Peter's Lifesite News Articles'