Supporters of California's Proposition 8, the amendment to ban gay marriage, have said they will file suit to challenge the Attorney General, former Governor, and possible 2010 gubernatorial candidate Jerry Brown's recent change in the measure's language. It now states that it would "eliminate the right of same sex couples to marry," rather than the opponents' preferred wording that it would "provide that" marriage is only between a man and a woman. If California were, say, Ohio (or one of the 48 states that does not recognize gay marriage), the second wording would be more appropriate, as the measure wouldn't be taking anything away. But it is, and some people mentioned in the article don't seem to recognize the importance of being honest in ballot language:
Political analysts on both sides suggest that the language change will make passage of the initiative more difficult, noting that voters might be more reluctant to pass a measure that makes clear it is taking away existing rights.
When it comes down to it, the measure would be taking away an existing right, one that was clearly established by the Supreme Court in June. There's no language that can describe it more accurately that that, and it would represent an act of political interference to phrase it otherwise. If voters feel strongly enough against gay marriage, they will be okay with eliminating the current right, no matter how it is phrased.
--Rachel Stern
