Posted on 03/15/2005 8:30:01 PM PST by Dashing Dasher
Calif. Marriage Fight Could Go to Voters
SAN FRANCISCO - Five years ago, California voters passed a law that tried to preserve marriage as the exclusive province of heterosexual couples. But following a judge's decision to strike down the statute, the debate has shifted to how a vote would go this time if a constitutional amendment banning same-sex nuptials makes it to the ballot.
One pollster believes it will be a close call. And though lawyers are gearing up for court battles — probably winding up before the California Supreme Court — activists on both sides of the debate claim the court of public opinion is what really matters, and is tilting their way. (YEAHRIGHTSURE)
Opponents of gay marriage are hoping California follows 13 other states that added gay marriage bans to their constitutions last year, a move that would put the issue out of the control of judges and lawmakers. (WE PASSED A LAW - we didn't know we had to add it to our constitution also!)
"The gay community constantly beats the drum of, 'We will get gay marriage through the Legislature or the courts.' They're not going to the people because they know they will never get it at the ballot box," said Benjamin Lopez, a lobbyist for the Traditional Values Coalition (news - web sites), a church-based group that is spearheading efforts to get such an amendment voted on in California.
The coalition has persuaded two legislators to sponsor anti-gay marriage amendments and pledged to launch a citizens initiative drive if the Legislature fails to put them on the ballot.
Under that likely scenario, the question probably wouldn't get put to voters until next year, according to Lopez. For an amendment to pass, it needs only a majority of the voters.
The organization is so confident of its ultimate success that it is seeking not only to ban gay marriage, but to rescind the myriad spousal benefits the state already grants same-sex couples who register as domestic partners, he said.
Supporters of same-sex marriage, however, think the public's understanding and acceptance of gay couples has changed since Proposition 22 passed with 61 percent of the vote in March 2000. (Don't count on it!)
The initiative, which stated California would only recognize a marriage between a man and a woman as valid, came about in the wake of Vermont granting marriagelike status to gays who entered into civil unions.
Since then, the Legislature has extended nearly all the rights and responsibilities of marriage to domestic partners, while gay couples have been allowed to legally wed in Massachusetts and Canada, noted Geoffrey Kors, executive director of Equality California, the state's largest gay rights lobbying group.
"This is a very different time," Kors said. "Today, everyone has an opinion on the subject. This is real."
Mark Baldassare, research director of the Public Policy Institute of California, predicted if an anti-gay marriage amendment were on the ballot now, the results would be substantially closer than they were five years ago.
A statewide poll the institute conducted before the March 2004 primary showed 44 percent of respondents favored allowing gays and lesbians to marry, compared to 38 percent four years earlier. "People see the different sides of the issue in a way they hadn't before," he said.
During an appearance on MSNBC's "Hardball" Monday night, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (news - web sites) said while he personally supports domestic partnerships and opposes gay marriage, he would not favor amending the state constitution if the state Supreme Court ultimately agrees that withholding marriage licenses from same-sex couples is unconstitutional.
"Whatever the Supreme Court decides, that's exactly what I will stay with," Schwarzenegger said.
Attorney General Bill Lockyer, whose office defended the state's existing marriage laws, wouldn't say whether he planned to appeal Monday's ruling. He noted, however, an appeals court would have to weigh in to make any changes in the law binding.
Why is it just TRIED now? We thought when we voted for this and it past - we wouldn't hear about it again!
If only there was a Judge in Collyfornia with the nads to declare the stem cell research proposition unconstitutional.
And the judge was a Republican appointee.
I know.
Deep Sigh.
Ping?
Proposition 22 that added language to the Family Code.
Had it been a Constitutional Amendment, we wouldn't have this problem.
We'll just have to do it again (and do it right this time with a Constitutional Amendment).
If the point is - "let's see what the people think" - then, they already know!!
This is just exhausting.....
But - worth the fight!
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.