A California court has ruled that the AG's wording change for their marriage amendment is OK:
In a written ruling issued Friday morning Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Timothy Frawley said that the title and summary accurately summarizes the proposition.
"There is nothing inherently argumentative or prejudicial about transitive verbs, and the Court is not willing to fashion a rule that would require the Attorney General to engage in useless nominalization," Frawley wrote.
The decision is a setback for gay marriage foes who say they will appeal.
For your information, here was the language change that the judge just approved:
The original ballot language read:
[Prop 8] Amends the California Constitution to provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.
The election official's change, however, gives the legislation a more straightforward read:
[Prop 8] Changes California Constitution to eliminate right of same-sex couples to marry. Provides that only a marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. Fiscal Impact: Over the next few years, potential revenue loss, mainly sales taxes, totaling in the several tens of millions of dollars, to state and local governments. In the long run, likely little fiscal impact to state and local governments.
Update: And they won't be appealing. This will stick.
Share
Like what you read? Subscribe to The Bilerico Project by Email.
Want others to read it too? Use the buttons and links here to share this entry with others. (Move your cursor over a button or link to learn more about it.)
7 Comments
« Gay serial killers and more! | Home | What If There Were Only Two Possible Sexual Orientations? »
I still don't understand why that part about fiscal impact is in the bill. It has no bearing on the law. WTF is that all about?
Serena Freewomyn | August 11, 2008 11:15 AM
Reply to this comment
It's not in the bill. it's in the summary of the law that'll appear on the ballot. They don't usually include the entire wording of the law on the ballot itself, so when people go to vote this is what they're going to see.
Alex Blaze | August 11, 2008 3:12 PM
Reply to this comment
Some states require fiscal impact statements on referenda which may affect the state budget.
gregC | August 11, 2008 5:47 PM
Reply to this comment
Am I the only one though that gets confused by short term loss of millions of dollars, but no long term loss? Won't they still have lost the millions of dollars?
Bil Browning | August 11, 2008 10:07 PM
Reply to this comment
I think that all they mean, Bil, is that initially they expect a large influx of same-sex couples to get married, and pay all the related sales tax that that involves. Then later, once all the current couples who want to get married are married, then there will be only the inflow of new couples getting married. Thus, in the first year or so there could be a large loss of revenues, but in the long term, losing the sales taxes associated with same-sex marraiges would not have a significant impact on future state revenue income flows.
But yes, you are right --- the money they lose inititally is lost for good.
A.J.Lopp | August 12, 2008 4:00 PM
Reply to this comment
What that is Serena,
Is your roadmap to defeating an anti-gay, anti-transgender and anti-civil rights ballot initiative.
Change it to eliminate the deceptive wording, mention how much lost revenue it's going to cost the state or jurisdiction and voila, they lose.
Why do you think the Reichers are fighting so hard to get the deceptive language put pack in the amendment?
It's a tactic our friends in Maryland should be using if all else fails.
Monica Roberts | August 12, 2008 6:07 AM
Reply to this comment
Let's hope this small victory helps lead to the real victory in November!
Brynn Craffey | August 12, 2008 9:16 PM
Reply to this comment