Heterosexual Supremacists Circulate Even Worse Anti-Gay Constitutional Amendment

Thanks to user KatRose over at Pam's House Blend Mad Professah was alerted to this newly amended version of the previously announced Randy Thomasson-sponsored amendment to the California state constitution which was also recently approved by the attorney general for circulation for signatures:

1253. (07-0020) Marriage. Elimination of Domestic Partnership Rights. Constitutional Amendment.

Summary Date: 7/16/07
Circulation Deadline: 12/13/07
Signatures Required: 694,354
Proponent: Larry Bowler and Randy Thomasson

Provides that only marriage between one man and one woman is valid or recognized in California. Prohibits decreasing marriage rights shared by one man and one woman. Defines man and woman. Voids or makes unenforceable certain rights and obligations conferred by California law on same-sex and opposite-sex couples registered as domestic partners, concerning subject areas including, but not limited to, community property, intestate succession, stepparent adoption, child custody, child support, hospital visitation, health care decisions for an incapacitated partner, insurance benefits, death benefits, and recovery for wrongful death. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: Unknown, but potential increased costs for state and local governments. The impact would depend in large part on future court interpretations. (Initiative 07-0020.) (Full Text)

As KatRose points out this initiative constitutional amendment purports to define what the State of California will consider a man and a woman. This is an incredibly intrusive measure that would be devastating to transgendered people and intersexuals. Sex is not a simple binary between male and female.

Happily, this measure is so extreme it is unlikely to get the signatures required, Mad Professah is much more worried about the more insidious initiative (07-0023) sponsored by Gail Knight (widow of the evil State Senator Pete Knight, the sponsor of anti-gay Proposition 22 which passed in March 2000) with financial backing from Focus on the Family:

SECTION 1. Title
This measure shall be known and may be cited as the
"California Marriage Protection Act."

SECTION 2. Article I, Section 7.5 is added to the California Constitution, to read:
Sec. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.This provision shall not affect the rights, benefits and obligations conferred by California law on other domestic relationships.

This is a much harder amendment to defeat because it explicitly leaves California domestic partnserships (which are the equivalent of civil unions) alone and doesn't try to define what "a man and a woman" are. It is basically a constitutional amendment version of Propostion 22, which what was an Initiative Statutory Amendment. This measure already has a ballot title and summary from the State Attorney General's Initiatives office as well as being on the Secretary of State's list of pending ballot initiatives:

Summary Date: 7/17/07
Circulation Deadline: 12/14/07
Signatures Required: 694,354

Proponent: Dennis Hollingsworth, Gail J. Knight, Hak-Shing William Tam, Peter Henderson and Mark A. Jansson c/o Andrew Pugno

LIMIT ON MARRIAGE. CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Amends the California Constitution to provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. Further amends the California Constitution to state that the amendment shall not affect the rights, benefits and obligations conferred by California law on other domestic relationships. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: The measure would have no fiscal effect on state or local governments. This is because there would be no change to the manner in which marriages are currently recognized by the state. (Initiative 07-0023.)

Hang on, folks, it's gonna be a bumpy ride!