Gotta love it

From today's Sacramento Bee comes this story:

Proponents of a ballot measure to ban same-sex marriages in California plan to appear in court today to challenge state Attorney General Jerry Brown's rewording of the measure's ballot summary.

On the petitions circulated last year to qualify the measure for the Nov. 4 ballot, it was described as a "Limit on Marriage."

But Brown's new title and summary of Proposition 8, posted on the Secretary of State's Web site on July 22, states the proposed constitutional amendment "Eliminates right of same-sex couples to marry."

What are they objecting to? It's what they want. Gotta figure that they want to sneak their bigotry past people who aren't paying a lot of attention, or who are shocked by the blatancy of the way Brown put it.

You go, Jerry. Tell it like it is.

Gareth Lacy, a spokesman for the attorney general, said the title was reworded because of a state Supreme Court ruling in May that overturned a ban on gay marriages in California. "We had a very significant Supreme Court decision, and the title and summary accurately reflect the measure," Lacy said.

He said the attorney general's office regularly changes "title and summaries to make them as accurate as possible at the time of the election."

Accurate as possible. "Limit on Marriage" sounds ... well, maybe it's stopping those Muslims or FLDSers from having four wives, or something. Brown's summary describes what it is, simply and plainly.

It's like those business owners who told the LA Times that

because of their personal beliefs they would refuse to be involved in same-sex marriages. But they declined to be identified out of concern that their business would suffer.

They know their raw hatred is too much for the average Californian, so they hide it behind "declining to be identified" or weasel-worded propositions. If you're going to force a vote on something, be honest about what it is. Don't your "personal beliefs" include something about lying?