Californians Get Two Shots at Protecting Marriage
Californians will have two shots at protecting traditional marriage this season with two separate petitions to amend the constitution circulating across the state.
Californians will have two shots at protecting traditional marriage this season with two separate petitions to amend the constitution circulating across the state.
Both the Protect Marriage Coalition and the Vote Yes to Marriage Coalition have already begun the process of placing a constitutional amendment defending heterosexual marriage on the 2006 ballot.
The Protect Marriage Coalition would amend language to read that “A marriage between a man and a woman is the only legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this state.”
Get Our Latest News for FREE
The Vote Yes to Marriage amendment would also read that “marriage rights for one man and one woman should be protected,” but adds that “marriage between one man and one woman is diminished when government bestows statutory rights or incidents of marriage on unmarried persons.” It further declares that “it is in the child’s best interest to have a mother and a father.”
But while the goal of both organizations are strikingly similar, they are taking separate steps, separate approaches, even a separate supporter-base to meet that goal. For example, the Family Research Council, Focus on the Family, and Concerned Women for America sponsor Protect Marriage, but not Vote Yes. The opposite is true for Liberty Counsel, the American Family Association and the Moral Majority Coalition; none of the sponsors overlap.
The two petitions are so different – at least according to organizers – that the Vote Yes coalition released a statement last week explaining why “the Protection Marriage amendment won’t protect marriage.”
The barrage begins with a description of the “deeply flawed initiative” sponsored by the Protect Marriage group, and continues with the claim that the initiative would eventually allow civil unions.
Randy Thomasson, head of the Vote Yes initiative, is also quoted as saying, “fortunately, voters have a choice and can support the true-blue marriage amendment sponsored by VoteYestMarriage.com” rather than the “fatally flawed and legally unsound…counterfeit marriage initiative” brought forth by ProtectMarriage.com.
Supporters of Protect Marriage, meanwhile, say such criticisms are baseless and false.
“The language on our initiative is rather clear that the only legal union that will be recognized is that between one man and one woman,” explained Pete Henderson, director of public policy for the California Family Council, which is supporting Protect Marriage. “This includes references to civil unions or any other unions within the context of marriage.”
Staff members at Protect Marriage are trying to shrug off the criticism and are focusing on getting the 600,000 valid signatures needed to place their initiative on the ballot.
“We prefer to just talk about our imitative and the strengths of our effort,” Henderson said. “We believe we have the ability to qualify it and get it before the public. We just choose not to comment about the other effort.”
Besides, Henderson explained, the coalition started the effort first and it has already sent out staff members to collect the signatures.
Vote Yes, meanwhile, is still in the process of rewriting a version of the petition language that will be circulated. Just yesterday, a judge ordered California’s Attorney General Bill Lockyer to re-write the text of the proposed amendment within the next two weeks upon the request of Liberty Counsel.
Once the title and summary are chosen, VoteYesMarriage has 150 days to gather the 586,105 signatures needed to place the amendment on the ballot.
Mat Staver, Senior Counsel of Liberty Counsel, believes this new effort is needed if “the essence of marriage” is to be protected.
“The two are not opposites and they don’t have a conflict of interest,” he explained.
“But there is clearly a different emphasis and Vote Yes is stronger and more detailed.”
Both initiatives could collect enough votes and make it on the 2006 ballot. At that time, voters can choose to pass both.
For more information about the separate initiatives, visit: www.protectmarriage.com and www.voteyesmarriage.com.
