Reneging on a right: ENDORSEMENTS 2008: By banning same-sex marriages, Prop. 8 would create second-class citizens.

This article came from the Los Angeles Times Opinion Section on 08/08/2008.

It's the same sentence as in 2000: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." Yet the issue that will be put before voters Nov. 4 is radically different. This time, the wording would be used to rescind an existing constitutional right to marry. We fervently hope that voters, whatever their personal or religious convictions, will shudder at such a step and vote no on Proposition 8.

The state of same-sex marriage shifted in May, when the California Supreme Court overturned Proposition 22, the ban on gay marriage that voters approved eight years ago, and ruled that marriage was a fundamental right under the state Constitution. As such, it could not be denied to a protected group -- in this case, gay and lesbian couples.

What voters must consider about Proposition 8 is that, unlike Proposition 22, this is no longer about refining existing California law. In the wake of the court's ruling, the only way to deny marriage to gay and lesbian couples is by revising constitutional rights themselves. Proposition 8 seeks to embed wording in the Constitution that would eliminate the fundamental right to same-sex marriage.

It's a rare and drastic step, invoking the constitutional-amendment process to strip people of rights. Yet in California, it can be done with a simple majority vote. All the more reason for voters to weigh carefully what would be wrought by this measure.

Supporters of Proposition 8 insist that the measure is in no way intended to diminish the rights of gays and lesbians, but instead means to encourage ideal households for the raising of children and to put a stop to activist judges. Besides, they say, domestic partnerships provide all the same rights as marriage.

In a meeting with The Times' editorial board, supporters argued at length that children are best off when raised by their own biological, married mothers and fathers. Even if that were true -- and there is much room for dispute -- this measure in no way moves society closer to such a traditional picture. Gay and lesbian couples already are raising their own children and will continue to do so, as will single parents and adoptive and blended families. Using the supporters'own reasoning, it would be better for same-sex parents to marry.

Proposition 8 supporters are right that domestic partnerships come exceedingly close to guaranteeing the same rights as marriage, as the state's high court recognized. Still, there are differences. Some are statutory -- domestic partners must share a residence, while married couples can live separately -- and others are pragmatic -- studies have found that domestic partners do not receive the same treatment or recognition from hospital staff, employers and the public as spouses do.

But it was Ronald M. George, chief justice of the California Supreme Court, who cut through to the essence of the issue in the May 15 opinion he wrote: "[A]ffording same-sex couples only a separate and differently named family relationship will, as a realistic matter, impose appreciable harm on same-sex couples and their children, because denying such couples access to the familiar and highly favored designation of marriage is likely to cast doubt on whether the official family relationship of same-sex couples enjoys dignity equal to that of opposite-sex couples."

In other words, the very act of denying gay and lesbian couples the right to marry -- traditionally the highest legal and societal recognition of a loving commitment -- by definition relegates them and their relationships to second-class status, separate and not all that equal.

To be sure, the court overturned Proposition 22, a vote of the people. That is the court's duty when a law is unconstitutional, even if it is exceedingly popular. Civil rights are commonly hard-won, and not the result of widespread consensus. Whites in the South vehemently rejected the 1954 Supreme Court decision to desegregate schools. For that matter, Californians have accused the state Supreme Court of obstructing the people's will on marriage before -- in 1948, when it struck down a ban on interracial marriages.

Fundamental rights are exactly that. They should neither wait for popular acceptance, nor be revoked because it is lacking.

Effort intensifies for same-sex marriage ban

Matthew Yi, Chronicle Sacramento Bureau

Friday, April 25, 2008

The battle over same-sex marriage in California heated up Thursday, when supporters of an initiative to ban it in the state's Constitution submitted more than 1.1 million signatures in an effort to qualify the measure for the November ballot.

Representatives of a conservative coalition called Protect Marriage delivered boxes of signed petitions in each of the state's 58 counties. Opponents immediately pledged to wage what is expected to be a costly campaign to defeat the measure if it goes to voters.

In the next several weeks, county and state officials will make sure the signatures are valid. To qualify for the ballot, the measure needs at least 694,354 signatures, or 8 percent of the votes cast in the last governor's race. A spokeswoman for Secretary of State Debra Bowen said the verification process could last until the middle of June.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said two weeks ago that he would fight such an initiative, and the state Supreme Court is weighing whether to overturn or leave intact Proposition 22, an initiative approved by California voters in 2000 that barred recognition of same-sex marriage in the state. Justices are expected to rule in June.

Backers of the new measure, known as the Limit on Marriage initiative, say voters should have the final say in the matter.

"The California marriage amendment will allow the people of California, not politicians or courts, to decide the meaning of marriage and place that meaning inside the Constitution," Joseph Infranco, an attorney for Alliance Defense Fund, an Arizona group helping the initiative campaign, said as he delivered about 44,000 petitions to Sacramento County's registrar of voters office.

"While the Supreme Court can overturn statutes, they can't overturn constitutional amendments," Infranco said.

Critics of the initiative have called the measure hateful and divisive by narrowly defining marriage.

"The state Constitution was created to provide everyone equal rights, and what these extreme, right-wing groups are doing is to take away from entire groups of people protections under the Constitution," said Geoff Kors, executive director of Equality California, a gay rights group.

The measure by Protect Marriage, which is based in Sacramento, is one of two current initiative efforts to ban same-sex marriage in the state. A second campaign, by a group called Vote Yes Marriage, would ban same-sex marriage and repeal domestic partner benefits, but that effort might be stalled.

The measure needs the same number of signatures as the Limit on Marriage initiative, and the petitions must be turned in by June 30. But supporters of that measure haven't received any campaign donations in recent months, and the group has only $42,106 in its coffers, according to campaign filings with the secretary of state's office. A telephone call to the group was not returned Thursday.

Protect Marriage, on the other hand, received more than $1.6 million in campaign donations since January, with the largest chunk, almost $900,000, coming from the National Organization for Marriage, a nonprofit in Princeton, N.J.

Backers of the proposed measure also have garnered endorsements from conservative and religious groups around the nation, including Focus on the Family, Concerned Women for America and the Traditional Values Coalition.

If the initiative qualifies, campaigning will be fierce, opponents and supporters said Thursday.

"We have been working to prepare for this for several years, and if they do qualify, we will mount a vigorous and hard-fought campaign," Kors said.

Infranco said he expects both sides to spend "tens of millions" of dollars to sway voters.

Schwarzenegger jumped into the same-sex-marriage fray this month, when he told a group of gay Republicans in San Diego that he would fight against the initiative for a constitutional amendment if it qualifies for the ballot.

His comments surprised some Capitol observers because the governor has twice vetoed bills to legalize same-sex marriage in California. But Schwarzenegger spokesman Aaron McLear said the governor was honoring the will of the voters and enforcing the law under Prop. 22.

But if the Supreme Court overturns Prop. 22, the governor would support that decision as well, McLear said. The governor doesn't think the state Constitution should be amended on an issue such as the prohibition of same-sex marriage, McLear also said.