Sign Petition: Ask for Veto of SB 906
SACRAMENTO, September 1, 2010 – The California legislature has sent to the Governor's desk SB 906, a Trojan horse marriage bill designed to help undermine Prop 8. Join thousands of California voters by signing a petition to send a strong message for the Governor to veto this latest slap at the more than 7 million voters who passed the initiative to define marriage between a man and a woman in November 2008.
See details about action on SB 906 in the CA Assembly (including how they voted)
SB 906 seeks to cause confusion by
- inventing new classes of marriage in conflict with Prop 8.
- creating the illusion of new protections for “religious” marriage while not providing any protections for organization and individuals who disagree with "new" definitions of marriage.
Ask Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to veto SB 906.
Call Governor's office: 916 445 2841. Tell him to veto SB 906
Ask Friends to join you
“The purpose of SB 906 seems clear”, said CCG Chairman William B. May. “The sponsor, Equality California, is trying to manufacture on their own a “civil” class of marriage that is independent of marriage as a reality of nature. It is clear this bill will be used to fool the voters into thinking there is a difference between marriages recognized by civil law and that recognized by religions, and that same-sex “marriage” will have no impact on churches and people of faith.”
Deceitful religious liberty wording in
“No person authorized by this subdivision (a priest, minister, rabbi, or authorized person of any religious denomination) shall be required to solemnize a marriage that is contrary to the tenets of his or her faith.”
Note in this language, the state would be merely granting religions control over their doctrine about who is qualified to be married in that faith and promising not to penalize them for that. But they will penalize them if they won’t rent their church hall for a same-sex “marriage” celebration.
In a letter delivered to all California Assembly members, Bill May, Chairman of Catholics for the Common Good, wrote, “Using common sense, the voters amended the California constitution to recognize this fact in civil law in 2008. Article I, Section 7.5 reads, ‘Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.’ Recognizing the union of a man and a woman with each other and the children that come from the relationship has a distinct public interest."
"The recognition, solemnization, or celebration of marriages by various religions provide a deeper understanding of the beauty and dignity of the institution as part of the ongoing process of creation—vital to the continuation of society and the public interest. Thus religion and government each add their own gloss to marriage, but there are not different classes of marriage, as this bill seeks to accomplish.”
The letter continues, "The concerns of people of faith do not relate to control of doctrine but to the free expression of the principles of their faith. Redefining marriage would make promoting the unique value and public interest of marriage between a man and a woman discriminatory under the law since all marriages would have to be treated equally. Churches and individuals who dissent or fail to recognize same-sex relationships as equivalent to “traditional” marriage become subject to law suits, civil penalties, social isolation, and persecution. SB 906 provides no protection for religious liberty in this regard."
"Experience demonstrates that the threat to religious liberty is real because the foundational argument advanced by same-sex “marriage” advocates is that mere opposition is an expression of discrimination, hatred, and bigotry. These sentiments have already led to the desecration of temples and churches, loss of employment for supporters of marriage as defined in the state constitution, and attacks on individuals and businesses that support the unique public interest of “traditional” marriage."
In addition to CCG's letter of opposition, a number of CCG's trained volunteers organize visits with selected Assembly members prior to the vote in that house. The bill passed the Assembly 51-26 (see details)