ad info

 
CNN.com Allpoliticsallpolitics.comwith TIME
   
 

 

  Search
 
 

 
POLITICS
TOP STORIES

Analysis indicates many Gore votes thrown out in Florida

Clinton's chief of staff calls White House over vandalism reports

Gephardt talks bipartisanship, outlines differences

(MORE)

TOP STORIES

India tends to quake survivors

Two Oklahoma State players among 10 killed in plane crash

Sharon calls peace talks a campaign ploy by Barak

Police arrest 100 Davos protesters

(MORE)

MARKETS
4:30pm ET, 4/16
144.70
8257.60
3.71
1394.72
10.90
879.91
 


WORLD

U.S.

LAW

TECHNOLOGY

ENTERTAINMENT

HEALTH

TRAVEL

FOOD

Texas cattle quarantined after violation of mad-cow feed ban
ARTS & STYLE



(MORE HEADLINES)
*
 
CNN Websites
Networks image


'Prop 22' social referendum grips California voters

Proposed law would not recognize gay marriages blessed by other states

March 3, 2000
Web posted at: 6:23 p.m. EST (2323 GMT)

LOS ANGELES (CNN) -- It wouldn't be an election year in the state of California without the odd controversial initiative or two included on the statewide voting ballot. The Year 2000 proves to be no exception, as the voters of the Golden State will find themselves alone in polling booths next Tuesday choosing their preferred candidates for the U.S. presidency, and pondering a series of difficult -- and sometimes confusing -- public referenda.

In the early stages of an election year, truth be told, democracy sometimes runs a slightly different, more gnarled course in this sprawling, culturally diverse state.

While most voters the nation over will consider presidential, congressional and local candidates -- as well as the occasional key referendum on issues such as medicinal marijuana or assisted suicide -- and a host of school and parks funding decisions, Californians are often placed in the position of having to cast deciding votes on proposals that could effect huge portions of the state's population.

And the rest of the country takes notice, with blanket media coverage often accorded to the most divisive of these proposals, and voters in other states sometimes looking on with some share of pity, and envy of their California counterparts.

In 1994, the key issue was Proposition 187, a statewide ballot referendum that would have blocked most social aid from being distributed to illegal immigrants and their families.

Though the proposition was a success in the voting booths -- it was championed by then Republican Gov. Pete Wilson -- Californians took a pummelling at the hands of the media and the national Democratic Party, who decried the effort as cruel and hard-hearted throughout the state, from the White House and in the halls of the House and Senate.

In 1998, the proposition was ruled unconstitutional.

Proposition 22 is garnering the same sort of attention here this election season, though any law birthed from the approval of this ballot initiative will probably not be subjected to the rigors of a court battle the way Prop 187 was.

Proposition 22 -- known as the "Limit on Marriage" initiative -- seeks to install a defense bulwark in front of what some in the state see as an encroachment upon basic family values, same-sex marriages. The proposal attempts to solidify the paradigm of marriage by insuring that marriage remains a bond between a "man and a woman."

But same-sex marriages are already not recognized in California -- a state with large homosexual enclaves in many of its largest urban areas.

The underlying premise of Prop 22, many of its supporters say, is that other, more liberally minded states than California are on their way to approving same-sex marriages. Couples married in those states could re-locate to California, they say, and they want assurances that the state will not recognize these unions once newly married couples establish residency here.

"Even though California law already says only a man and a woman may marry, it also recognizes marriages from other states," wrote 20 year-old citizen Miriam G. Santacruz, in a recent letter to the Secretary of State's office supporting the initiative.

"However, judges in some of those states want to define marriage differently than we do," Santacruz continued. "If they succeed, California may have to recognize new kinds of marriages, even though most people believe marriage should be between a man and a woman."

"Marriage is an important part of our lives, our families and our future. Someday I hope to meet a wonderful man, marry and have children of my own. By voting "Yes" on 22, I'm doing my part today to keep that dream alive," Santacruz said.

The two most visible states in the nation's burning gay marriage debate are Hawaii and Vermont. Hawaii's same-sex marriage effort was been held up in state courts for some time before it was rejected late last year, while the movement appears to be alive and well in Vermont, where on Wednesday, the state's House Judiciary Committee passed its so-called civil unions bill by a vote of 10 to 1.

Vermont's bill would extend the benefits and rights granted to all state-sanctioned heterosexual marriages to all homosexual domestic partnerships. The bill is expected to reach the state House by the end of the month.

About 30 states have passed laws stipulating that they would not recognize same-sex marriages sanctioned by other states. The Republican-controlled U.S. Congress also got in on the act, with its recent passage of the "Defense of Marriage" act.

Minor language, big effect, detractors say

And now, California would appear to be the newest battleground for this steadily simmering issue.

Prop 22, opponents say, is fraught with a number of insidious, underlying effects that do not meet the naked eye.

"This initiative is not about defending marriage, it is about discriminating against gays and lesbians," said Tracy Conaty of the San Francisco-based advocacy group "NoOnKnight."

The name of the group refers to state Republican Sen. Pete Knight, sponsor of the proposition.

"What the extremists behind Proposition 22 intended to do was shut down the debate about gays and lesbians and their families," Conaty said Friday. "Instead, they have blown the debate wide open."

Opponents insist that if a law that does not recognize same-sex unions hits the state books, hospital visitation rights for gay couples would disappear, and probate procedures could become a veritable nightmare for the surviving member of a same-sex union.

"The proponents of Proposition 22 say that (it) doesn't deny hospital visitation or inheritance rights for lesbians and gays," according to an argument penned by Gil Garcetti, the district attorney for the county of Los Angeles, and others. "But in Florida and Virginia, arch-conservative legal organizations have used similar laws as tools in court to deny lesbians and gays fundamental rights -- like the right to visit a sick or injured partner in the hospital, the right to inheritance, or the right to health insurance."

Garcetti is joined in his opposition to the measure by California's Democratic Gov. Gray Davis, the state's two Democratic Senators, Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein, and GOP congressman Tom Campbell.

"Our challenge is to chip away at the veneer of moderation that covers Proposition 22," said Conaty. "We have to explain that the proposition's 14 words are not as simple as they seem. Once we are able to tell people who opposes this proposition, they begin to understand what is going on here."

A full-page ad taken out in Wednesday's Los Angeles times by the Regas Institute, Progressive Religious Partnership and California People of Faith said the effects of the initiative could reach much farther -- by codifying "bigotry."

The ad featured hundreds of names -- many of those identified as members of the clergy -- of people who urge 'no' votes against the proposition.

"It is troubling that so much of the support for Proposition 22 is cast in religious language," the text reads. "Proposition 22 is unconscionably silent on the problems facing California's families. The initiative will not prevent infidelity, divorce, chaos, spousal abuse or teenage parenthood.

The newspaper ad is only one in a ferocious series of vollies being fired across the state in papers, on television, and on the radio.

Defenders of the proposition say ads such as the full page 'interfaith' petition in the Times grossly distort their intent.

An advertisement aired by the "Yes On 22" campaign says gay and lesbian couples should be allowed the to freedom to choose partners and domestic situations however they may, but they should not be allowed to "redefine marriage" for the vast majority of Californians.

"We have run a positive, respectful, tolerant campaign that does not take away anyone's rights," said Robert Glazier, communications director for Yes On 22. "We believe there is a loophole in California law that needs to be closed."

That loophole, Glazier said Friday, might allow "activist judges" in other states to affect the social fabric of California.

"If we're going to redefine marriage in this state, that's fine. But it should be done in California, by Californians."

Thus far, in this state where Democrats by and large manage state operations and most urban centers, the Los Angeles Times has predicted that the "Yes on 22" effort and others like it are in the driver's seat.

A poll released by the paper on Thursday shows that 57 percent of potential voters in the state support the measure, 36 percent oppose it, and some 7 percent are still thinking it through.

"We believe fair-minded Californians have seen what this is, and will support it," Glazier said.

Presidential positions

Speaking Wednesday night at a Democratic candidate forum in Los Angeles, both party hopefuls Vice President Al Gore and former New Jersey Sen. Bill Bradley blasted the intent of the measure, though they said they did not support the premise of gay marriage.

"I think this is, in part, kind of a mean-spirited, wedge initiative," Gore said. "I think it is time to leave people alone because of the way God made them and stop the discrimination."

Gore intimated that the broader issue of discrimination based on sexual orientation will likely be central to the late stages of the presidential campaign, while Bradley said such bias was one of the core civil rights issues of the early part of the 21st Century.

"I don't support gay marriage, but I do support domestic partnership legislation that would provide gays and lesbians all the legal and financial rights that accrue to a state of marriage," Bradley said.

The issue was not raised during Thursday's Republican debate in Los Angeles, though Texas Gov. George W. Bush, Arizona Sen. John McCain, and conservative talk show host Alan Keyes all oppose same-sex unions.

 
ELECTION 2000

WHAT'S AT STAKE

RACES
If you need to know who's up in 1999 or 2000 and what seats are open launch this quick guide.

THE STATES
Who are your elected officials? What is the past presidential vote and number of electoral votes in your state? Find out with these state political and election facts.

POLLS
Check out the latest numbers or dig back into the poll archives.

COMMUNITY


MORE STORIES:

Friday, March 3, 2000


 Search   

Back to the top  © 2001 Cable News Network. All Rights Reserved.
Terms under which this service is provided to you.
Read our privacy guidelines.