You’ll remember a while back that the California legislature passed a measure legalizing same-sex marriage — a historic move that made them the first legislature to do so without first being prompted by the courts — and governor Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed it.
Well, now one of the groups working to put a same-sex marriage ban on the ballot has pulled the plug, citing the “political climate” as one of the reasons.
One of two groups competing to put a gay marriage ban before California voters in 2006 has bowed out of the fight for now, saying the timing and political climate are not right to get such a measure passed.
Tuesday was the deadline for ProtectMarriage.com to submit the signatures needed to qualify for the June primary ballot one of two overlapping initiatives that would outlaw same-sex marriage and restrict domestic partnership rights.
Andrew Pugno, the group’s legal adviser, said the signature drive had fallen about 200,000 voters short of the requirement for 591,105 signatures.
Pugno said factors in the group’s decision included the difficulty of raising money in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina; the dimming prospect that the California Legislature will reconsider a bill legalizing gay marriage next year; and a lawsuit on the issue that is not expected to reach the state Supreme Court until late 2006.
“It boils down to a recognition that a ballot fight isn’t likely until 2008,” Pugno said. “This doesn’t resolve the issue by any means; it merely delays the resolution.”
I’d say Pungo (Punko?) is probably right on the delayed resolution tip. However, I don’t think that the matter will be resolved in his favor. The state legislature’s historic move, Schwarzenegger’s’ veto notwithstanding, is a significant step forward that shouldn’t be underestimated.
Schwarzenegger punted to California voters in his veto statement, but the legislators that passed same-sex marriage this year were elected by California voters. So, it’s entirely likely that the votes of the legislators reflect the current position of their constituents. The failure of Pungo’s group to get the required number of signatures further suggests that California voters may have progressed on the issue since the 2000 vote against same-sex marriage.
Maybe it’s because they saw the happy, orderly, non-threatening couples at San Francisco’s city hall, queing up to get married. Maybe it’s because they’ve begun to hear our families stories, including stories like Laurel Hester’s. Whatever the reason, it looks like the electorate may have shifted in California, and if the legislator has a veto-proof vote margin when it votes on same-sex marriage again in 2006, folks like Pungo and the politicos who placate them — like Schwarzenegger — may find themselves left behind.
Let’s hope so.
Pingback: Greg Prince’s Blog » Roundup
That is the way bigots work, they go with the tides and when the tide is against them they decide to wait it out. I think it’s going to be a longer wait then they might like. Consider that when Ford caved to the AFA boycott it became the first time most anyone heard about the boycott, which became national news. Consider it took 2 weeks for them to change their policy back. Not just back, but including a major expansion of Ford advertising into the realm of the GLBT community. I find it very amusing that just today I got yet another apoligetic e-mail from Ford. apologising for the "mis-understanding."
It’s a sign of the times and becoming more poignant. It was an interesting perspective I had never thought of when I was listening to Al Frankken a few weeks ago. He had on a guest who was the child of a gay father. She had become a sort of spokesperson for the issue of gay families. The interesting point she had made was that most kids she talked to were un-aware until this debate became national news again that their parents were not all ready married. I have already been a big supporter of gay marriage but that just really drove it home, this is not a political debate were talking about – it’s the lives of millions of children.