Gay marriage fails to get on California ballot

Related Topics

SAN FRANCISCO | Mon Apr 12, 2010 5:05pm EDT

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - A challenge to California's gay marriage ban failed on Monday to qualify for the 2010 ballot, leaving gay activists mulling a 2012 push and hoping a federal court will overturn the measure before then.

Los Angeles-based Love Honor Cherish carried out a volunteer-driven signature-gathering effort after large groups decided there was not enough time to ensure victory this year, even with some polls showing more than 50 percent support for same-sex marriage.

A 150-day period to gather signatures to place the question on the ballot ended on Monday.

Courts and state legislatures have legalized same-sex marriage in five U.S. states and the District of Columbia, but popular votes have always rejected such unions, which are illegal in the vast majority of U.S. states.

California voters in November 2008 ended a summer of court-allowed gay marriage by enacting a ban on same-sex unions by a 52 to 48 percent vote. The move by the trend-setting state enthused social conservatives and stunned lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender supporters nationwide.

A San Francisco federal court now is weighing whether the U.S. Constitution prohibits Proposition 8, which defined marriage as a union of a man and a woman. That battle is expected to be appealed up to the U.S. Supreme Court.

"That trial I think is the most import single event in the modern LGBT equality movement," said Rick Jacobs, head of the Courage Campaign, speaking of the gay and lesbian movement. His community organizing group considered a 2010 push but decided it was too soon.

"If the court rules that Prop 8 is unconstitutional, that is going to catalyze folks on both sides," he said.

Many gay activists are wary of the Supreme Court bid, fearing conservative justices would not support their cause.

Love Honor Cherish Executive Director John Henning said if voters overturned Proposition 8 in 2012 -- the next time a ballot measure could qualify -- it could effectively take the issue out of the Court's hands.

"I'd rather repeal Prop 8 than see the Supreme Court review it, given the current composition of the court," Henning said.

(Reporting by Peter Henderson, editing by Philip Barbara)

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (59)
TexJal wrote:
When in doubt, run to a Federal judge to legislate from the bench and overrule the will of the people. Constitution? What Constitution?

Apr 12, 2010 5:19pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Beez wrote:
There are only two options for ‘marriage’ that make any legal or logical sense.

Traditional marriage can be so defined and upheld – that is the one most supported by the millennia of shared human experience.

Otherwise, marriage can be relegated to a private ceremony in a church or club, and state-sponsored marriage can be replaced by a ‘household contract’ – one that does not afford protection ONLY to one additional group, but instead allows sharing of household benefits regardless of ‘genitalia fun preference’, and does so equitably without imposing a particular religious (or anti-religious) viewpoint.

Apr 12, 2010 5:32pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
ra44mr2 wrote:
Ha! Until both sides start supporting the constitution neither side will get what they want. Instead of focusing on this monstrous ridiculous health care bill the Congress could have ruled on gay marriage. Look i agree its a civil rights issue, but honestly this is a right you REALLY do not want as much as you may think you do. I know that once this passes within a few years there will be some incredibly rich lawyers and they will continue to be rich because they will have this whole new demographic that is going to be serial monogamists that love the idea of being married but wont like the reality of it very much at all.

Apr 12, 2010 5:42pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.