Protect Marriage heading for November state ballot

If signature gathering continues during the first week of April at the same pace as March, the people of California — instead of the courts — will be able to decide the definition of marriage.

For several months now, Protect Marriage has been attempting to collect 1.1 million signatures so it can to qualify for a state constitutional amendment. As of March 25, more than 900,000 signatures had been collected.

The 900,000 count is impressive, since the 700,000 valid signatures is what is required, but the ones collected so far have not all been verified. Thatπs why itπs important to get the 1.1 million or more.

≥Our åsoftπ deadline is April 1, but weπll keep taking them for a couple of weeks,≤ said Ron Prentice of the California Family Council, which is coordinating the Protect Marriage effort. ≥Our final, final deadline is April 21 for the verified signatures to be turned into the respective counties.≤

≥The deadline is fast approaching and tens of thousands of petitions that have been distributed have not yet been turned in,≤ he noted.

San Diego County has been a model for the rest of the state with about 75 distribution centers where petitions can be dropped off or returned. Most of the sites are churches and they are listed on their Web pages, www.ProtectMarriage.com or www.ProtectMarriagesd.com.

≥We need them returned as quickly as possible,≤ Prentice said, ≥so there is time to separate, scour and distribute them.≤

The Rock Church in San Diego is serving as the central distribution point. Pastors in San Diego — notably Jim Garlow, Chris Clark and Miles McPherson — have worked in other parts of the state to get pastors to understand the importance of the constitutional amendment.

The majority of the petitions gathered so far have come from volunteer efforts. About 35 percent are from paid signature gathering.

≥Weπve had tremendous support from the Catholic community in San Diego,≤ Prentice said, noting that half of the overall budget for the state campaign is funding from Catholics in San Diego. That includes a significant amount from the national office of Knights of Columbus.

The paid signature gathering has been successful, Prentice said, in spite of an organized effort by a pro-homosexual activist group, Equality California, to harass petition signing efforts.

After a story in the San Diego Union-Tribune identified four businessmen in the county who contributed major funding for Protect Marriage, the Gay and Lesbian Times ran an editorial about boycotting their establishments.

≥These men are heroes and we need to patronize their businesses,≤ said Brian Brown, director of the National Organization for Marriage — a New Jersey-based Catholic ministry that is lending its support to Protect Marriage.

≥We realize that as California goes, so goes the rest of the nation,≤ Brown said, ≥so weπre here primarily to help with funding. In two months, weπve been able to raise $750,000-plus.≤

The businessmen identified in the Union-Tribute article were headed by Mission Valley developer Terry Caster, owner of A1 Self Storage, who donated $162,500; and developer Douglas Manchester, owner of the Manchester Grand Hyatt and the San Diego Marriott Hotel and Marina, who donated $125,000.

The story also noted a $50,000 contribution from La Jolla businessman Robert Benson, and a $25,000 donation from Robert Hoehn, owner of Hoehn Motors in Carlsbad.

The wording on the proposed constitutional amendment — which would go on the November ballot — is the same as Proposition 22, approved by state voters on March 7, 2000, a proposal to enact a state ≥Defense of Marriage Act≤ as an initiative statute. The text of Proposition 22 reads:

≥Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.≤

Proposition 22 was ratified by an overwhelming majority of California voters, prevailing with 61.4% of the total vote. However, its implementation has been tied up in the courts. The initiative added a regular statute to the California Family Code (not the state constitution) to keep marriage between a man and a woman and prevent the state Legislature from redefining marriage without a vote of the people. Since then, however, politicians and judges have chipped away at Proposition 22 and ignored the will of the voters.

For example, in 2004, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom thumbed his nose at California voters by issuing marriage licenses to thousands of homosexual couples in open defiance of the proposition. Ultimately, the courts declared those so-called ≥marriages≤ to be invalid, but left the door open to a future constitutional challenge against traditional marriage.

The Legislature is again considering methods to allow licensing of homosexual ≥marriage.≤

Additionally, the courts have undermined Proposition 22 and marriage by upholding an act of the Legislature that gave homosexual ≥domestic partners≤ the full legal status of married spouses. A San Francisco judge ruled that Proposition 22 violates the California Constitution and ordered the licensing of same-sex ≥marriages.≤ That decision is currently being appealed before the California Supreme Court — with a decision expected this summer.

If the state court agrees with conservatives and Proposition 22 is implemented, it could still be open to other challenges. Thatπs the reason Protect Marriage has undertaken the challenge of qualifying for a constitutional amendment.

Should the Supreme Court say Proposition 22 is unconstitutional, conservatives in the state will have a greater incentive to see the Protect Marriage constitutional amendment approved.

Getting the measure on the ballot — and approved by 50% of voters in November — would give the power to the people instead of the Legislature or courts.