Proposition 8
ELIMINATES RIGHT OF SAME–SEX COUPLES TO MARRY. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
Changes the California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in California.
Provides that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.
Summary of Legislative Analyst’s Estimate of Net State and Local Government Fiscal Impact:
Over the next few years, potential revenue loss, mainly from sales taxes, totaling in the several tens of millions of dollars, to state and local governments.
In the long run, likely little fiscal impact on state and local governments.
ANALYSIS BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST
BACKGROUND.
In March 2000, California voters passed Proposition 22 to specify in state law that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. In May 2008, the California Supreme Court ruled that the statute enacted by Proposition 22 and other statutes that limit marriage to a relationship between a man and a woman violated the equal protection clause of the California Constitution. It also held that individuals of the same sex have the right to marry under the California Constitution. As a result of the ruling, marriage between individuals of the same sex is currently valid or recognized in the state.
PROPOSAL
This measure amends the California Constitution to specify that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. As a result, notwithstanding the California Supreme Court ruling of May 2008, marriage would be limited to individuals of the opposite sex, and individuals of the same sex would not have the right to marry in California.
FISCAL EFFECTS
Because marriage between individuals of the same sex is currently valid in California, there would likely be an increase in spending on weddings by same-sex couples in California over the next few years. This would result in increased revenue, primarily sales tax revenue, to state and local governments.
By specifying that marriage between individuals of the same sex is not valid or recognized, this measure could result in revenue loss, mainly from sales taxes, to state and local governments. Over the next few years, this loss could potentially total in the several tens of millions of dollars. Over the long run, this measure would likely have little fiscal impact on state and local governments
Para mais informações, V. http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/argu-rebut/argu-rebutt8.htm
Subscrever:
Enviar feedback (Atom)
1 comentário:
O casamento é, deve ser, um contrato, duradouro, celebrado entre pessoas de sexo diferente, que pretendam constituir família. O casamento, está claro, não serve só a procriação. É a base das sociedades.
O princípio da igualdade traduz-se em tratar o igual de forma igual e o diferente de forma diferente. Para que haja tratamento igual, deve haver um pressuposto factual igual. Diferente será um "igualitarismo" castrador das liberdades individuais.
Os casais homosexuais que não estão casados não são discriminados, casados o seriam.
Têm, esses, a liberdades para dispor do seu património e para se unirem, para amarem cães, gatos, computadores, árvores, etc.
Não é preciso perceber muito de psicologia para perceber que os dois pais (mãe e pai, não pai e pai ou mae e mae) têm, cada um, um papel distinto e importante na educaçao dos filhos e lhes darão um qualquer equilibrio(...)
Não é pelas modas que se devem destruir os valores fundamentais.
O casamento é e sempre foi um contrato, duradouro, celebrado entre pessoas de sexo diferente. É assim.
A particularidade é essa.
Já houve alguém que se casou com uma playstation...
Enviar um comentário