Schwarzenegger: use of the words 'marry' and 'marriage' is not required by the California Constitution.

Question

In the Governor's brief, filed by his team of lawyers, Schwarzenegger says, "The Administration submits that use of the words 'marry' and 'marriage' is not required by the California Constitution. Thus, the name of the legal
relationship now known as 'marriage' could be changed."

Schwarzenegger's brief states: ". . . except for the ability to choose and declare one's life partner in a reciprocal commitment of mutual support, any of the statutory rights and obligations that are afforded to married couples in California could be abrogated or eliminated by the Legislature or the electorate for any rational legislative purpose."

I believe this is a preemptive step being taken to convolute any federally mandated abolition of homosexual union.
Your thoughts?

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/aug/07082702.html

Answer 1

Actually Cora said best.

Also you don't get a marriage license from your priest, rabbi or whoever. You go to a federal court house to obtain it and you are actually "married" there.

The ceremony as the church is just that a ceremony to appaise your religion and make it official for that religion.

Answer 2

Actually, it's the most practical solution.

Keep "marriage" as a purely social and religious term.

Make "civil unions" or "domestic partnership" as the only term that has legal meaning and provides legal benefits.

Answer 3

Sorry I say let queers be shot. They are not natural. Without the heterosexual people of the world they wouldn't even be in it. Man and woman=Natural. Anything else is alien.

Answer 4

i say let gays be married,, so long as they have to go through the same divorce hell as heteros,, who cares