I doubt that will be the end of it though. If you are correct, then even if this amendment passes, it will still leave domestic partnerships in place. The anti-gay-marriage campaigners will not settle for that.

As you were probably aware, there was a second petition in California that would have banned marriages and Domestic Partnerships in California and that one did not get enough signatures to be voted on in November.

I appreciate the factors you are considering. I am considering those as well. But I think there are more that you are not considering and I hope to discuss those further in a later post.

Let me just make a few factual corrections…

1. “They got enough signatures to get on the ballot *easily* – it wasn’t even close.”

Actually it was fairly close timewise. As of a few weeks before the deadline they had to redouble efforts to push to get the signatures. I didn’t doubt that they would, but it wasn’t a slam-dunk.

2. “Also, I note that two years ago the people voted for a plain law to ban gay marriage – it passed. The new amendment uses the same wording. Two years isn’t that much time to change, and this time the anti-gay-marriage faction is much more motivated.”

That vote was in 2000, eight years ago, not two.

3. “A poll says it has 52% backing, and remember that those who support it are *far* more likely to bother voting than those who claimed to oppose, many of whome don’t have strong views and so just said no by default.”

There are conflicting polls. Another poll released a week later said that the amendment would fail. See my commentary here.

4. “As for the effect of the amendment, that’s easy enough to find out. Just look up it’s exact wording. It couldn’t be more clear: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” That’s it. No complicated legal text this time: Just a single sentence. The effect of that is very obvious: All those gay marriages will no longer be recognised.”

Actually, there are a number of outcomes, none of which is obvious. This is because the ruling was not limited to marriage but also established orientation as a “suspect class” and also because amendments are not retroactive. There is no clear agreement of what is likely, much less what is obvious. However, most legal experts I’ve heard agree that marriages that occur before November will continue to stand.

5. “Unusually for a marriage protection ammendment, there is no ban on civil unions. Bit of a loophole there, but it would only work that way if the legislature voted to pass a law creating civil unions. And even if they did, there would be no federal recognition, which makes them half-useless.”

Currently California has Domestic Partnerships that have all and exactly the same rights, benefits and obligations of marriage that are conferred by the State. No further litigation would be necessary.

I appreciate your concern but I think that your prediction about the outcome of a California vote in November may be based on incomplete information.

I think they can do it. I am quite confident in this.

As for the effect of the amendment, that’s easy enough to find out. Just look up it’s exact wording. It couldn’t be more clear: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” That’s it. No complicated legal text this time: Just a single sentence. The effect of that is very obvious: All those gay marriages will no longer be recognised.

Unusually for a marriage protection ammendment, there is no ban on civil unions. Bit of a loophole there, but it would only work that way if the legislature voted to pass a law creating civil unions. And even if they did, there would be no federal recognition, which makes them half-useless.

Enjoy while it lasts – The marriage-banning ammendment is almost certain to pass in November, not just preventing new marriage but annulling those already performed.

Suricou Raven,

Are you a Californian? As a fourth generation native that has lived in Northern, Central, and Southern California, I have some very reasons to think otherwise. The circumstances now are very different than they were in 2000 and I think that there is a very good chance that this amendment will fail. And by substantial numbers.

I may later write a post on why but I want to wait until the vote is closer.

The legislature has already voted twice in favour of equal marriage (though the voting system means the representatives are more liberal than their constituents), and the popular governor supports it. And it’s surely in CA more than anywhere else that gays live like everyone else, not confined in urban ghettos.

Remains to be seen if Dr. Dobson and his colleagues will start railing against arrogant unelected voters taking decisions away from ordinary Americans (i.e. themselves).

Still, it’s a few months to demonstrate that gay marriage isn’t going to destroy anything :>