The California supreme court ruling legalizing gay marriage in the state will not be the last word.
California voters will almost certainly hold a referendum on a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage in November, and for the first time anywhere in the United States, the vote will have a direct and immediate effect on gay couples waiting to tie the knot.
The amendment needs a simple majority to pass, and if the voters reject gay marriage, their decision will supersede the high court's Thursday ruling that made California the second state to legalize gay marriage, behind Massachusetts. There are signs the contest's outcome will be close.
It will certainly be costly -- the two sides say they plan to spend at least $25 million combined on the campaign.
''The people who want to defeat the amendment are going to have to work very hard to be successful -- harder than the people who want the amendment to pass,'' said Charles Gossett, a California State University, Pomona, political scientist who has analyzed a decade's worth of poll numbers on the issue. ''But I don't think it's impossible.''
Though the state has a history of being in the vanguard on gay rights, California residents have polled slightly against same-sex rights in recent years.
The most recent polls, conducted in 2006 and 2007, found that 51% and 49% of survey respondents opposed making gay marriage legal, while 43% and 45% endorsed the idea.
Those numbers have remained virtually unchanged since then-governor Gray Davis signed legislation in 2003 giving registered domestic partners the same rights and benefits as married spouses and since same-sex marriage became legal in Massachusetts in 2004, according to Gossett. A handful of other states offer civil unions and domestic partnerships similar to marriage.
Proponents of the November initiative think the court's 4–3 ruling will hit closer to home and galvanize moderate voters who do not mind gay couples entering into domestic partnerships but want marriage reserved for a man and a woman.
''You may find even increased support from 2000,'' when an anti–gay marriage referendum passed easily, said Andrew Pugno of the California Marriage Protection Act campaign. ''With this court decision, the need for the marriage amendment is brought into clearer focus.''
Mindful of the defeat suffered by gay marriage opponents in Arizona -- the only state where voters have rejected a marriage amendment -- the sponsors deliberately decided against trying to simultaneously repeal domestic-partner rights, which two thirds of California voters support.
The secretary of state still must verify the initiative, a decision expected next month.
Groups from across the United States already are pledging resources to defeat or support the measure, similar to gay marriage bans enacted in 26 other states. Colorado-based Focus on the Family and the Democratic Congressional Committee both donated funds during the signature-gathering phase.
The California Conference of Catholic Bishops will not take a position on the measure until it qualifies for the ballot, but ''it is obviously an issue they will support,'' said spokeswoman Carol Hogan. The church's position could be a key factor with Latino voters, who have been registering in greater numbers, Gossett said. The pope reiterated his opposition to gay unions on Friday.
Gossett also noted that survey respondents often give what they consider to be politically correct answers on social questions such as gay marriage, but record their true beliefs at the ballot box. A month before 61% of California voters approved the 2000 marriage ban, only 52% of likely voters told pollsters they favored the proposition.
Corey Cook, a political scientist at the University of San Francisco, said other demographic and political changes will be in play during a presidential election that has attracted the interest of younger voters who tend to be much more accepting of gay relationships.
''We have a different electorate than we did eight years ago. They're more inclined to vote against the constitutional amendment,'' Cook said.
Perhaps more important, Californians this time might have witnessed hundreds of gay marriages by November. Opponents of gay marriage will ask the high court to stay Thursday's decision, but the court is not obligated to do so.
If gay marriages become a reality this summer, Cook said, voters will be faced with the choice of disappointing their neighbors and relatives. Some think that will only happen in San Francisco, but Cook disagreed.
''People who live in Fresno are going to know gay people who are going to be married,'' he said. (Lisa Leff, AP)
These comments are reproduced as written by visitors to this Web site. They have not been edited for content, grammar, or spelling. The viewpoints appearing here are those of the writer, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion or views of advocate.com, The Advocate, or its affiliates.
If you would like to submit a comment for posting, please fill out the form above.
All comments submitted via this form are subject to posting or publication. (To send a private letter to an Advocate editor or writer, please use the e-mail button at the top of the page, or use snail mail.) If you would like your comment considered for publication in The Advocate magazine, please include your full name, your city of residence, and a phone number where you can be reached during business hours so that we can confirm your identity. Your e-mail address and telephone number are strictly confidential and will not be shared or used for any purpose other than to contact you about your comment.
Comments that do not concern specific articles in The Advocate or on Advocate.com will not be posted or published. See the Contact page for sending comments for reasons other than responding to Advocate editorial and news stories.
Please note that comments sent by fax or snail mail are unlikely to be posted, although they will be considered for publication along with all letters received via e-mail or via this Web page. Comments that chiefly concern Advocate.com content will be considered for posting only on the Web site. The Advocate reserves the right to edit submitted comments for grammar, spelling, obscenities, or libel; we will, however, do our best to preserve the original comment's style and intent. Comments considered for publication in The Advocate magazine may also be edited for length.
Home | Contact | Current Issue | LGBT Community Partners | Staff
Advertise With Us | Jobs | Help
Subscribe: Print Edition Digital Edition | Subscriber Services: Print Edition Digital Edition
Visit our Websites
Out.com | OutTraveler.com | HIVPlusMag.com | Alyson.com | Gay.com | PlanetOut.com
Privacy Policy | User Agreement | Community Guidelines | Legal Notice
Advocate.com © 2008 PlanetOut Inc. All Rights Reserved.