Calif. Marriage Fight Could Go to Voters (AP)

[jefferson_dem]

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.


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.


"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.

<SNIP>



http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=616&u=/ap/20050316/ap_on_el_st_lo/gay_marriage_30&printer=1

[seriousstan]

1. Be careful of majority rule, you are always surprised at how the

majority thinks.

[Red State Rebel]

2. Remember the blue/red map after Ahnold was voted in?

I don't think there is any way it would pass in California. What a shame.

[jefferson_dem]

3. I agree. This is a question of fundamental rights and equal protection.

And such should definitely not be determined by majority consent. That being said, it would be refreshing beyond belief to have a state sanction, by popular vote, what is fundamentally ... right.

[Rainscents]

4. To get on the ballot in Nov...don't they need 600,000 petition signatures?

[mike6640]

5. majority rule

does not equal constitutionality.

I personally do not trust the 'majority', or anyone, for that matter, to legislate morality.

M

[GoddessOfGuinness]

6. Before we vote on whether same-sex couples can marry

We need to vote on whether it's the government's business to define the nature of religious institutions at all. I think not.

[truthpusher]

7. Calif. Marriage Fight Could Go to Voters

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,1282,-4868469,00.html

Calif. Marriage Fight Could Go to Voters

---------------------------------
Wednesday March 16, 2005 3:31 AM
By LISA LEFF
Associated Press Writer
--------------------------------

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - 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.

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.

``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, a church-based group that is spearheading efforts to get such an amendment voted on in California.

(snip)

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.

complete story: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,1282,-4868469,00.html

[StuckinKS]

9. Smug Confidence

Oh boy! They just showed how they will sink themselves. Prop. 22 passed five years ago but California residents have become more open on this viewpoint in the intervening years. And, if they lump same-sex marriage and domestic partner benefits together in the same amendment, they will lose. Every poll I have seen in California shows a healthy support for domestic partner benefits.

The TVC has shown how stupid they are with their idiot arguments against same-sex marriage up to this point.

[EFerrari]

8. Gavin did a great interview this morning on our local SF Ch 2

And he made the same point. The majority was against women voting and interracial marriage, too.

I've never been a fan of his and disagree with many of his policies. On this issue, he's really good and an effective presenter of the argument.