In an overt attempt to sabotage Proposition 8, California's marriage protection amendment, Attorney General Jerry Brown has reworded the ballot summary. The initiative that 1.1 million California voters signed and was to have appeared on the ballot read  "[Proposition 8] amends the California Constitution to provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.""

With Brown's creative writing, the new ballot summary says that it "'changes California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry."   Further it claims that the state will be impacted with a potential revenue loss of several million dollars-an argument calculated to prejudice voters in these difficult economic  times.

Jennifer Kerns, spokeswoman for the Protect Marriage coalition, told the LA Times that the new language was "inherently argumentative" and said it could "prejudice voters against the initiative."

The LA Times also reported, "The dust-up reflects the fierce battle being waged over the question of same-sex marriage in California, the most closely-watched social issue that will appear on the November ballot.  And it has raised suspicion in some circles that Brown, a possible candidate for governor in 2010, was influenced by politics.  "He is delivering something...that is very important to the gay community, and that is a title and summary that is more likely to lead you to vote "no," said political analyst Tony Quinn.

That Brown panders to the gay community instead of believing he needs to take any note of those who support family is a demonstration of where the political clout lies these days.  Social conservatives need to step up to the plate with money and time to support the causes they believe in.

The Protect Marriage Coalition, of which Family Leader is a member, will challenge this ballot summary next Tuesday in court.  As citizens in California scramble to save marriage, a July 19 th Field poll shows just how damaging this language change can be.  With the reticence from the population to eliminate anyone's rights, Prop. 8 falls behind when it is described as a measure to ban gay marriage, but pulls ahead by several points when its exact wording is known.

"This is a complete about-fact from the ballot title that was assigned" when the measure was being circulated for signatures," Kern said.

The Wall Street Journal's John Fund has written an intriguing article called " The Far Left's War on Democray" which details how opponents use sometimes outrageous means to derail ballot initiatives.  It is worth reading.

Massachusetts Moves to Define Marriage for Other States

Yesterday, the Massachusetts House voted 118 to 35  to repeal the 1913 law that prevented non-resident same-sex couples from marrying in Massachusetts.  The Senate had earlier repealed the law which now heads to Gov. Deval Patrick's desk for his signature.  

The Massachusetts Family Institute issued this press release:

 In a move that directly defies the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) decision which created same-sex marriage in Massachusetts, the House voted to allow out-of-state same-sex couples to marry in Massachusetts.

"This legislature picks and chooses like a cafeteria buffet what areas of the Goodridge decision it will embrace," said Kris Mineau, president, Massachusetts Family Institute referring to Justice Greaney's opinion, which states that the 1913 law upholds states' rights by precluding persons in other states from obtaining marriage recognition that is otherwise unlawful.

With that protective barrier removed, out-of-state same-sex couples who marry here will sue to   seek recognition in their home states-creating a flood of costly lawsuits and further eroding the people's right to define marriage democratically.  It also puts so-called "gay divorce" in question as same-sex couples face a legal limbo when seeking to dissolve their Massachusetts marriages in their home states which have not recognized them.

Dubbed falsely by same-sex marriage activists as a law with a racial bias, the SJC in 2006 ruled that the 1913 law was not racially motivated.  It was written to create uniform marriage standards and uphold states rights to set their own parameters on the institution of marriage.

"Massachusetts legislators voted to abolish a ban on interracial marriage in 1843-a full seventy years before the 1913 law was written," said Mr. Mineau, "Race was not a factor-if it were, I would support this repeal."

We often have warned that same-sex marriage and the homosexual agenda is on a collision course with religious freedom.  Read this report from the Capitol Resource Institute.

"If government recognizes same-sex marriage as a legal right, it is obligated to protect that right-and increasingly, that means silencing religious speech.  This is underscored by two resolutions in San Francisco, as the city called itself "America's most tolerant and progressive city," according to the San Francisco Chronicle. Hearings on the first resolution, which condemns the Catholic Church, took place in the Ninth District Court of Appeals last week.

"San Francisco denounced Catholic teachings on homosexuality as ‘insulting to all San Franciscans,' ‘hateful,' ‘defamatory,' ‘ignorant,' and more.  Resolution 168-08 passed unanimously by the city and county board in 2006, was a response to the Vatican's ban on placing adoptive children in homosexual households.  It called the Vatican a ‘foreign country' that attempted to ‘negatively influence existing and established customs.'  In closing, it noted that the office which issued this ban was called ‘The Holy Office of the Inquisition' a century ago.

"With the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, two Catholic residents of San Francisco filed suit, calling this an unconstitutional display of government hostility toward religion.  They lost in the District Court, where a judge said that the Catholic Church was responsible for having ‘provoked this debate' and that elected officials were ‘merely exercising their free speech rights.  Attorneys with the Thomas More Law Center are seeking a different ruling-one that prohibits government condemnation of faith-from the Court of Appeals.

"One week after issuing Resolution 168-08, San Francisco passed another unanimous resolution against Teen Mania's Battle Cry for a Generation rally. In the city's AT&T Park, 25,000 teens had rallied against the sexualization of youth culture by advertisers and media, WorldNetDaily reported. The Board of Supervisors called this an ‘'act of provocation' by an ‘anti-gay,' ‘anti-choice' organization that wanted to 'negatively influence' city politics. California Assemblyman Mark Leno, who is homosexual, said that religious people may be few -- but ‘they're loud, they're obnoxious, they're disgusting, and they should get out of San Francisco.'