Californians pass constitutional ban on homosexual marriages

Los Angeles, Calif-By a resounding vote of 61% to 19%, California voters last week approved a constitutional amendment barring legalization of homosexual marriage. Only voters in the San Francisco Bay area opposed the measure, 69% to 31%.

Defying attacks trom pro-homosexual organizations, many mainstream churches joined with conservative politicians to help secure passage of Proposition 22, the "Protection of Marriage" initiative.

Prop 22 contained a mere 14 words: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

Thirty years ago this language would have seemed laughably, if not ludicrously, redundant-even in the City of San Francisco. But with California now home to the nation's largest homosexual population, Prop 22 gathered national media attention over a long, hard-fought, well-financed campaign. That attention intensified in December after the Vermont Supreme Court ruled that that state's legislature must give homosexual couples the same rights as heterosexual couples (although not necessarily legal "mariage" status).

Before passage of Prop 22, California law prohibited contracting same-sex marriages within state boundaries. However, it did not address the status of homosexuals who contracted a "marriage" in another jurisdiction and then moved to California (as of yet, no U.S. state has legalized homosexual marriage). California State Sen. Pete Knight (R.) crafted the proposition to preemptively close that loophole.

"If [another] state rules in favor of same-sex marriage, then people could go to that state, get married, come back to California, and expect to receive the same rights and benefits as a heterosexual couple," Knight told reporters.

Much of the opposition to the initiative focused personally on Knight who is an outspoken conservative, and who has an avowedly homosexual son. "No on Knight" was one of their slogans.

The opponents also had considerable financial clout. The bulk of the estimated $5.9 million spent by the "No on Proposition 22 Committee" was raised in large amounts from homosexual activists and their sympathizers in the business community. Among the major contributors were GEO Cities founder David Bohnett ($250,000), Queer Net owner Roger Klorese ($25,000), and Seattle's avowedly homosexual City Councilwoman Tina Podlodowski ($15,000).

Most California Democrats--clearly worried about offending a constituency that is a major source of party funding-weighed in against 22. They included Gov. Gray Davis and State Atty. Gen. William Lockyer. (Several sources told me that San Francisco Democrat Lockyer, who oversees the final language of ballot initiatives, may have tried to confuse voters by listing the measure on the ballot as the "Limit on Marriage" proposal instead of titling it "Protection of Marriage," as sought by proponents.)

In contrast, the pro-Proposition 22 committee raised more than $8.5 million from more than 15,800 small donors, leading committee spokesman Robert Glazer to define the campaign as "thousands of California families versus a very small group of gay activists and special interest groups."

Most Republican Party officers and elected officials endorsed a "Yes" vote (including all three GOP presidential hopefuls), with State GOP Chairman John McGraw successfully guiding his party organization to formally bless "22."

Republicans were surprised, however, when University of California Regent Ward Connerly opposed 22. Connerly became nationally known among conservatives when he led the fight for Prop 209, the California ballot initiative that banned affirmative action in state schools, jobs and contracts.

A diverse group of churches also worked to win passage for the proposition. The Roman Catholic Church donated more than $300,000 to the initiative, while members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (with 740,000 members in the state) gave more than twice that amount and, along with Southern Baptists and evangelical conservatives, were among the most vigorous volunteers in the campaign for enactment.

Veteran Los Angeles radio talk show host Ray Briem, a Mormon, told HUMAN EVENTS, "Vincent Garth, our bishop here in the Santa Monica stake, emphasized to us several times what a priority it was to pass '22' and warned about the ramifications of the Vermont court ruling if it wasn't passed."

James Dobson, the president of Focus on the Family, devoted two days of his nationally syndicated radio show to Proposition 22, while his organization mailed brochures to 240,000 Californians, according to spokesman Tom Minnery.

Some California churches joined in the "yes" campaign at considerable risk. Leaders of the New Life Community Church of the Nazarene in Pismo Beach told reporters that the San Luis Obispo County Tax Assessor's Office had told them they had received complaints from community memhers about pro-22 signs displayed on church property and were told they were breaking the law.

Pastor Roy Fruits of the Grace Bible Church in Arroyo Grande said that several pro-22 signs had been stolen from his church's property and that he had received warnings from county officials about his church's involvement in the initiative fight.