Today’s letter – we need it either way

Dear Governor Schwarzenegger –

When you vetoed AB 849, the 2005 version of the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act, you concluded “If the ban of same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, this bill is not necessary. If the ban is constitutional, this bill is ineffective.”

With AB 43, the exact opposite is true. If the ban on same-sex couples from marriage is found to be unconstitutional, a bill like AB 43 would be necessary for marriages to commence. If the special ban is constitutional, this bill would be effective at changing a different part of the Family Code than the one currently being examined by the court.

The people will ultimately decide, and AB 43 is the prescription for doing that: a necessary and effective law that would end the ban preventing religious institutions from freely practicing their beliefs and stop the special exclusion of same-sex couples from choosing marriage. I wish you would sign this prescription for the health, safety and security of all California’s families.

Sincerely,

Today’s letter – First state to eliminate racial restrictions should not be the last to eliminate gender restrictions

Dear Governor Schwarzenegger –

In 1948 California was the first state to remove its ban on interracial marriage. At the time, only one out of ten Americans supported the action.

Alabama was the last state with a ban on the books. They finally removed it in the year 2000, fifty-two years after us. The popular vote was only 60/40 in favor of removing it.

California has missed its opportunity to be the first state with permanent marriage equality, let’s not make it the last. Please sign AB 43 and bring us marriage equality now.

Yours truly,