Gay marriage ban qualifies for California ballot

SAN FRANCISCO — An initiative that would again outlaw gay marriage in California has qualified for the November ballot, the Secretary of State announced Monday.

California Secretary of State Debra Bowen said a random check of signatures submitted by the measure's sponsors showed that they had gathered enough names for it to be put to voters.

The measure would amend the state constitution to "provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

If approved by a majority of voters on Nov. 4, the amendment would overturn the recent California Supreme Court ruling that legalized same-sex marriage in the state. It is similar to gay marriage bans that have been adopted in 26 other states.

"This signifies the fact that California voters really do favor and will come out to vote for the protection of historic marriage," said Ron Prentice, executive director of ProtectMarriage.com, a coalition of religious and social conservative groups behind the initiative.

In response to the court's May 15 ruling, California public health officials already have amended marriage license applications to read "Party A" and "Party B" instead of bride and groom. Local officials have been told to start issuing the revised licenses to same-sex couples on June 17.

Gay men and lesbians would still be able to get married between then and the election, even with the initiative pending, unless the court agrees to stay its decision until after Nov. 4, as the amendment's sponsors have requested.

If the marriages proceed during the next five months, it is unclear whether they would be nullified if the amendment passes. Some legal scholars have said the state Supreme Court might get called on again to settle that question.

Kate Kendell, executive director of the San Francisco-based National Center for Lesbian Rights, said gay marriage advocates have already launched a campaign to defeat the measure.

"There is just so much at stake, now, in terms of what kind of state we are going to live in and what values we are going to uphold," Kendell said.

To qualify for the ballot, the measure needed 694,354 petition signatures, an amount equal to 8 percent of the votes cast during the last governor's race.

Proponents submitted 1,120,801 signatures in late April, and county clerks determined the measure qualified by verifying the validity of 3 percent of the signatures they received, according to Bowen.

Recent polls have found California voters are about evenly split on whether gay couples should be allowed to marry.

Comments

[JohnBryansFontaine]

DerekRC"s comment about low voter support for gay marriage is valid. The issue of gay marriage could easily cost Democrats another presidential election. Democrats must weigh whether this issue is indeed more important than other progressive causes, such as re-empowering labor or keeping choice legal.

It is just a fact of political life that working-class folks are anti gay marriage.

If the small elite of pro gay marriage supporters were less selfish, self-centered and more honest, they would start up their own political party.

Again, the issue of gay marriage will almost certainly cause Democrats to lose in 2008. This is why both Obama and Clinton continue to oppose gay marriage, though both support civil unions

[DerekRC]

The proposition will pass. Every election cycle, the real support (voters) for gay marriage is proved to be at 30%. Proponents of gay marriage conveniently forget that there is no push for gay marriage outside of the gay and lesbian community, and far left liberals. Mainstream voters are not fooled by the civil rights claims that proponents make ad nauseum.

[realityczech4u]

You're no fun, Derek. The truth is unpleasant; facts confusing;reality a drag.


Power to the people.

[rmetz74]

Derek also thinks no state has ever defeated a gay marriage ban proposal. (I corrected him.)

In fact, the opposite of Derek's claim is true... There is no push to ban gay marriage outside of neocons who don't atually care about the issue, but use it to try to motivate lazy right-wing voters.

Derek, you don'tknow the bill will pass, becasue you're not psychic. Find another tactic.

[johnnyjust]

Lots of norma-phobes on PuffPost.

This initiative is not a bad of homosexual marriage; it is defining marriage as it has always been: between one man and one woman. But we already know that, it's just that some of us like to pretend. Like we like to pretend that homosexuality if the norm, and everything else is an aberration. Pretty silly.

It reminds me of "The Emperor's New Clothes." An entire kingdom joined in the charade that the emperor, prancing around in his underwear, was actually wearing magic cloth that only the elite could see. Not wanting to be seen as hateful, hurtful or fabric-phobic, the people accepted the lie. After all, what did it hurt anyone if the king wanted to deceive himself and prance around in his underwear? Wasn't his reality just as valid as real reality? Better that than look unenlightened. As we all know.

It took the simple common sense of a child--as it does today--to laugh the whole thing off as absurd...though in the original story the king, hearing the laughter, continued to prance about lest he let on he knew the truth as well.

Hopefully come November others with common sense will put an end to the charade. Either that or join the cowed crowd and pretend.

[Susanfrom29]

Just because there are enough evangelicals to get this put on the ballot does not mean there are enough Californians to pass it.

Once our friends get to start marrying each other on June 17th, most Californians will realize that their happiness and joy does not destroy or in any way damage the institution of marriage.

The latest Gallup poll of the issue shows that public attitudes on this issue are changing out here, making it unlikely that the proposition will pass in November.

[realityczech4u]

Now, now, Susan, Let's admit to ourselves that, while the 'evangelicals' make convenient scapegoats, the support for retaining the age-old definition of marriage is far more widespread than that.
And 'most Californians' came to no such realization and proved it at the polls after Gavin Newsome thumbed his nose at the law and allowed homosexuals to marry in SF.

[robertsandimas]

Susanfrom29: Mmmmmwwwaaaaaahhhhh (that's a kiss) and it comes from a 65 year old gay man who will marry his 67 year old partner after November. ( I don't want to be nullified.) My 77 and 74 year old sisters will march us down the aisle and the rest of the family will be cheering. It's about time. Thank you for your kind and thoughtful words. We are Californians, born and raised.
Today's events are inspiring us and our friends. Change is on the way in America. We recently returned from a trip to South America. One acquaintance said that if we were to elect an African American or a Woman, much of the world would consider us finally "grown up."

[WorkingClass]

Best of everything to both you guys. I'm a 64 year old straight guy who married for love. Twice. Now I'm alone again but this time I love it. After doing a lot of stuff wrong, It looks to me like marriage is useful for starting a family, or as a business arrangement. Also, marriage is a powerful sacrament if properly understood and done in a church. With you guys, your wedding will actually be the consummation of your marriage. You already like your marriage so its hard to see any risk or down-side. Ok I just wanted to chat you up and wish you well.

[Susanfrom29]

Best wishes to you and yours. I have friends that are hoping to wed this summer. (And no one can nullify you!!)

It is time for everyone to enjoy the full benefits of citizenship and to be treated equally.

[DerekRC]

The proposition will pass. Every election cycle, the real support (voters) for gay marriage is proved to be at 30%. Proponents of gay marriage conveniently forget that there is no push for gay marriage outside of the gay and lesbian community, and far left liberals. Mainstream voters are not fooled by the civil rights claims that proponents make ad nauseum.

[rmetz74]

Psst - we all know you dn't have a crystal ball, Derek.

Cutting and pasting doesn't make your predictions any more real.

[Susanfrom29]

The problem that you will have is that Obama will bring out all of those young voters who are far more tolerant than the older folks who have, in the past defeated the hopes of so many.

[realityczech4u]

Power to the people.

[Vern58]

I think the time has come in California. My best friend in LA of nearly 20 years is getting ready to marry his Partner of 25 years. They are as normal and boring as any straight couple i know. I hope the people of California will see through the Homophobia and realize that we are being disenfranchised.

[JadedAggie]

Unfortunately this amendment is likely to pass because of the fact that such a significant number of those that are against it are under 30 and simply don't vote in the same proportions as those that are for it. To be honest I think the entire debate is ludicrous and if democrats really wanted to succeed they would just change ALL legal marriage to civil unions. The whole point of the California supreme courts decision was that there was no legitimate difference between civil unions and marriage so the only reason for the two terms to coexist was to discriminate against one group.

[Susanfrom29]

But don't forget, that that young demographic is exactly the demographic that Obama has been bringing out in record numbers. He can get them to the polls in November to beat McCain.

And there are a lot of us older folks (I'm 58 and my husband is 80) that will vote against any attempt to discriminate against any one group.

[sandiegoconservative]

My biggest concern is that if the marriages are allowed to proceed until that time and then if the measure passes and is placed in the constitution, many legal issues will arise because the marriage would be void. That could be a legal nightmare.

[buddhistMonkey]

My understanding (I could be wrong) is that the marriages wouldn't be voided, they'd be "grandfathered in." I don't think that scenario will come to pass, though, for two reasons. First, there are going to be a hell of a lot more Democrats than Republicans at the polls in November, and recent polls show a slight advantage for proponents of gay marriage, who are typically Democrats. There's a better-than-average chance that the this measure will simply be defeated by the voters.

Second, this ballot initiative may well be unconstitutional itself, because of a technicality in Article 18 of California's Constitution that differentiates between "amendments" and "revisions". This measure claims to be "amending" the Constitution -- which is allowed under Article 18 -- but in reality, it's attempting to "revise" existing marriage rights. That must be done through the legislature and a constitutional convention. The State Supreme Court case that opened the door for gay marriage supports this interpretation.

If I were a betting man (and I am), my money would be on gay marriages still existing in California after November.

[HollywoodBill]

That is precisely why I believe that the California Supreme Court will stay its own decision until after the November election. Not only a legal mess, but an emotional trauma that the court really doesn't want to impose on anyone. A wait of five months isn't going to kill anyone.

[rmetz74]

I cannot WAIT to vote this thing down. In red states, such measures might attract conservatives to the polls, but here... It's going to attract all the young voters who are bored by economics, but know social injustice when they see it. I can't wait.

[DerekRC]

No state has ever voted a ban on gay marriage down. It is only activist judges who endorse mens rights to marry other men.

Good luck though!

[greenwriter]

Derek -- Actually, Arizona defeated an attempted ban in 2006. And this fall's amendment effort will fail spectacularly in California. The world only spins forward. And just for the record: When the California Supreme Court in 1948 overturned the ban on interracial marriage, 90% of the state and country disagreed with the decision. Would you argue that it was wrong of the Court? They were being 'activist' judges? And note that even with their deep-rooted prejudice then, Californians didn't ban together to try and amend the constitution to take away the newly awarded marriage rights to interracial couples. They accepted that this was the new law of the land. Many probably examined their own prejudices and had a chance of heart. The current effort in California is funded by a handful of evangelical extremists and out-of-state fundamentalist groups. People here know better. The era of prejudice is at an end. Try to evolve.

[Susanfrom29]

Well, you just keep an eye on California.

This is 2008. A black man is the Democratic nominee after beating a woman.

This will be the year that diversity becomes commonplace.

[rmetz74]

And to get you started on the road to tolerance, gay marriage also refers to women marrying women.

[rmetz74]

Gay marriage bans have been defeated in Massachussets, Iowa, Arizona, Indiana, New Hampshire, Georgia, and Idaho.

We in California look forward to joining those great states.

[SouthJerseySteve]

Let's search out all the public men's rooms for those Republicans who are homophobic? Has anyone seen Larry Craig and Ted Haggart lately? I'm just saying...

[TheJibreelaMonsters]

Cali just went Red... thank you (however gays should be able to marry)

[rmetz74]

California is blue, and this proposal is toast.

[HollywoodBill]

Ultimately, the voters of California will be the decision makers in this matter, as they should be. There is no right to marriage anywhere in the USConsitution. It is a privilege granted to the States and, whether some like it or not, the state has the legal authority to restrict it. Provided it is in the state's constitution. And that's what this initiative is all about.

The Gay and Lesbian community cannot expect the courts to do all the heavy lifting. Nor take all the incoming flack about usurping the role of the electorate. The Justices knew full well that this initiative was in the works--everyone in the state was aware of it. By ruling that they would allow same sex marriage they let the public know that should this amendment fail, same sex marriage will be the law in California.

The important thing is that they are letting the people's voice be heard and to ultimately be the decision maker. Both sides can now give it their best shot. This is the way the system should work. One side doesn't get to claim a legal victory without doing any work. Nor does the other get to claim that the judges are legislating from the bench. This is as close to pure democracy as it gets. It's been awhile since we've had a real amendment brawl out here. It's going to be fun!

[DerekRC]

This issue has absolutely nothing to do with equality. Every single American man has the exact same right to marry a woman.

There is no precedent whatsoever for men marrying men throughout history. There is likewise no precedent for women to marry women.

The reason is obvious to those who wish to "think". Sperm needs eggs. Eggs need sperm. It is that simple and fundamental truth that is the foundation of marriage laws.

You can scream about the impotent men, and barren women who need to adopt, but you never address the fundamental basic biological fact that men and women are different.

Homosexual tendency, while I believe it to be determined at birth, is still in fact abnormal biological behavior. It is not "normal", nor does it necessitate activist judical rulings legitimizing it.

[Susanfrom29]

Um, excuse me, but you are standing smack dab in the middle of the tracks on which the future is going to come barreling down, knocking you and your arguments into history.

People are people, love is universal; who are you to say that only the way you practice it is the only way it can be practiced?