Posted on 12/28/2005 6:50:50 PM PST by calcowgirl
SAN FRANCISCO – One of the two groups competing to put a gay marriage ban before California voters in 2006 has bowed out of the fight for now, saying that it does not think the timing or political climate is right to get such a measure passed.
Tuesday was the deadline for ProtectMarriage.com, the sponsor of one of the overlapping initiatives, to submit the signatures needed to qualify for the June primary ballot a constitutional amendment that would have outlawed same-sex marriage and restricted domestic partnership rights in the state.
But Andrew Pugno, the group's legal adviser, said that after a five-month, volunteer-driven effort, the signature drive had fallen about 200,000 voters short of the requirement for 591,105 signatures. In addition, with only a four-month window to gather new names in time for November's general election, ProtectMarriage.com's leaders do not plan to circulate the backup petitions they filed with the state, according to Pugno.
Factors in the group's decision included the difficulty of raising money in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina and last month's special election, the dimming prospect that the California Legislature will reconsider a bill legalizing gay marriage next year and a lawsuit on the issue that is not expected to reach the state Supreme Court until late in 2006.
"The absence of this obscures for voters the need to pass such a measure," Pugno said. "It boils down to a recognition that a ballot fight isn't likely until 2008. This doesn't resolve the issue by any means; it merely delays the resolution."
VoteYesMarriage.com, the other group seeking to have California join the 18 other states that have amended their constitutions to ban gay marriage, has not abandoned the hope of qualifying an initiative for next November, said organizer Randy Thomasson. But it has postponed launching its petition drive while raising money to hire professional signature-gatherers, he said.
"Whither for 2006 or 2008, VoteYesMarriage.com is devoted to giving the people the chance to protect marriage from the clutches of the bureaucracy," Thomasson said.
The uncertainty surrounding the proposed measures marked a significant departure from the rhetoric that surrounded the gay marriage debate in California last summer, when the Legislature became the nation's first elected state body to pass a bill legalizing gay marriages. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed the law, but conservative activists warned that without amending the Constitution it was only a matter of time before either lawmakers or the courts sanctioned same-sex unions.
A rare rift among conservatives, however, led the two groups to promote dueling gay marriage bans while sniping publicly over which proposal was better. At the center of the split was disagreement over how far the anti-gay marriage camp should go in attempting to repeal the significant spousal rights domestic partners are granted in California.
Polling conducted for ProtectMarriage.com by Harris Interactive last summer showed that while a majority of voters supported a gay marriage ban, there was much less support for taking away the rights domestic partners already have, Pugno said.
The initiative being promoted by Thomasson's rival group explicitly states that those existing rights, which include being the assumed inheritor of a partner's estate, would be reserved only for married couples. However, Thomasson noted that current domestic partner benefits still could be accessed through private contracts.
Given the public's continued support for domestic partnerships and the bad blood that developed between the two groups, ProtectMarriage.com's leaders won't join the other camp unless new polls show that its approach would work, Pugno said. Unless the two sides join forces, the chances of a gay marriage ban getting voted on next year are even more remote, he said.
"There is no hard evidence the VoteYesMarriage people have the ability to qualify a measure by themselves in terms of money or manpower," Pugno said.
Didn't California voters do this already? And wasn't their decision simply thrown out by the courts?
They shouldn't waste their money. People are so liberal here in California that opinion even on something like this issue is tilted leftward.
WHAT? THIS fell SHORT of required signatures?
Didn't we already vote on this? CA Republicans are spineless jellyfish.
Yes, with Proposition 22.
And wasn't their decision simply thrown out by the courts?
No, the Governors Davis and Schwarzenegger and the legislature have effectively ignored it in all but name.
Arnold just appointed another leftist to the high court, in place of Janice Brown. I agree. In the current climate it would be unwise to push the issue, or you might end up with the wrong result, which would be a real mess to undo.
I think we did.
I also tend to recall that some damn judge overruled us.
How so?
I hope the issue goes on the ballot in November, not June, since the GOP will need a big conservative turnout in the general election. The conservative movement needs Tom McClintock to be elected Lt. Governor; I'd like to see Arnold reelected as well, since, as bad as he has been, the Democrats would be even worse. And isn't *someone* going to run against Senator Feinstein?
On March 7, 2000, the people of California voted on Proposition 22, a proposal to enact a state "Defense of Marriage Act" as an initiative statute. The text of Prop 22 reads:
“Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”“ Proposition 22 was ratified by an overwhelming majority of California voters, prevailing by a 23-point margin. Statewide, 4,618,673 votes were cast in favor of the proposition, comprising 61.4% of the total vote. Opponents garnered 2,909,370 votes, for 38.6% of the vote.
Final vote counts revealed that Proposition 22 won in 52 of California's 58 counties, including all of the major metropolitan areas except for San Francisco. The six counties which did not approve Prop. 22 were all in the immediate San Francisco Bay area, including: Alameda county, Marin county, San Francisco county, Santa Cruz county, Sonoma county, and Yolo county.
Full election returns are available on the California Secretary of State website (PDF - 73KB).
Sent in response to e-mail to from Sharon Raphael, Professor, CSUDH.
"Thank you for your correspondence regarding Proposition 22.
Please be assured that I have given your comments and suggestions serious consideration. As I made clear in my campaign, I have always opposed same-sex marriage. However, I have also made it clear that I oppose wedge-issue politics that have divided one Californian from another and made scapegoats of certain groups of our citizens. Proposition 22, in my opinion, is clearly in that category and I have announced my opposition to the initiative.
I believe it is an unnecessary distraction because current California law already clearly and unequivocally limits marriage to a man and a woman. The placement of this kind of emotionally charged issue on the ballot serves mainly to stir up prejudices and hostility - sometimes with tragic consequences.
As Governor, I will do everything within my power to honor the dignity, humanity and privacy of every Californian, regardless of their ethnicity, religion, national origin, gender or sexual orientation.
I appreciate the time you took to write and express your views."
Proposition 22:
In the year 2000, California voters passed Proposition 22, by a vote of 61.4% to 38.6%. The Proposition, also known as the "California Defense of Marriage Act" modifies Section 308.5 of the Family Code to read: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."
In 2005-MAR, Judge Richard Kramer of the San Francisco County Superior Court ruled that Proposition 22, and other California legislation which prevent same-sex couples from marrying, were unconstitutional. He ruled that these laws violate the civil rights of same-sex couples because they "implicate the basic human right to marry a person of one's choice." The ruling has since been stayed and has been appealed to the San Francisco-based 1st District Court of Appeal.
Bill AB-205 introduced in the state legislature:
Early in 2003, Jackie Goldberg (D-Los Angeles) of the five-person Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Caucus introduced bill AB-205 the "Domestic Partner Rights and Responsibilities Act of 2003." As passed and signed into law, it granted domestic partners "the same rights [that are] granted to and imposed upon [married] spouses" by the state of California.
AB-205 found constitutional by the Supreme Court:
On 2005-JUN-29. the California Supreme Court let the domestic partnership law stand. "Without comment, the unanimous justices upheld appellate and trial court rulings that the sweeping measure does not conflict with a voter-approved initiative defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman."
Bill AB-196:
Another bill, AB-196, will prohibit housing and employment discrimination against transgender individuals who have surgically changed their gender.
Bill AB 196 was passed by the state assembly's Labor and Employment Committee in 2003-MAR. 6 It was passed by the Senate on 2003-JUL-25, and signed into law by Governor Gray Davis on 2003-AUG-3. It takes effect on 2004-JAN-1. This makes California only the fourth state in the U.S. to protect transgendered individuals from discrimination. Minnesota, New Mexico and Rhode Island had already passed similar legislation.
There is a lot of information on this site. I fully recommend going to the link above and reading in ful.
Maybe THIS is Al Gore's motivation for moving to S.F./CA.
All it takes is a Governor willing to not veto the minority legislature's dastardly counter as to the popular vote...
Yes, a minority view overruled the majority of the popular vote. And it was a very healthy majority vote, too, in favor of marriage being defined as a relationship between one man and one woman.
I think *everyone* is afraid to run against Feinstein. Not that she's that popular but that, well, those who vote for her are, and there'd be consequences, to put it obliquely here.
Bill AB-196:
Because of the CA nurses union, mostly, that that issue was even up as issue, much less passed.
CA nurses union, whose retirement money, along with that from the CA teachers union, is managed by Sen. Dianne Feinstein's husband.
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.