Sham marriages

While those over at No Minister investigate Greek issues and marriages of convenience, after following a link, I found that those in the Golden State are having a golden moment.

proposed constitutional amendment to outlaw same-sex marriage in California said Monday they have gathered enough signatures to qualify the measure for the November ballot.

Like our recently buggered smacking petition, a few in-state voters have arduously collected more than a few signatures and have raised for the next election, what we would call a referendum. I say arduously collected, because even with interfering of gathering of petition signatures being illegal over there, more than a few out-of-state rent-a-gay-mob appear to have just done that whilst signatures were being gathered. Is it the same in NZ, I wonder? Still they got there and a million plus signatures is not to be sniffed at.

the voters in California will have the chance to protect marriage

Yes the Californian electorate is making a further stand (initially done in 2000) on the definition of marriage as being

a California voter initiative defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

Even the Pope is in on the act. US bishops have been given the same message.

the sacramental bond of marriage seems scarcely distinguishable from a civil bond, or even a purely informal and open-ended arrangement to live with another person.

The electorate is being forced to take a stand on the matter, even Arnie is getting flak for not supporting the cause.

Not content to wait years to respond to the state Supreme Court, Californians are asserting their constitutional prerogative to settle this fundamental question for themselves. This will be an epic battle to defend not just marriage, but voters’ self-determination.

It would be great if NZ could have made the same commitment to real marriages, the rights of real parents and not sham marriages of convenience.