Calif. gay activists question strategy

Some see better odds on marriage question in 2012

By Maura Dolan
Los Angeles Times / December 2, 2009

E-mail this article

Invalid E-mail address
Invalid E-mail address

Sending your article

Your article has been sent.

  • E-mail|
  • Print|
  • Reprints|
  • |
Text size +

LOS ANGELES - A measure to reinstate marriage rights for gays and lesbians on next year’s ballot in California has stirred anxiety and doubts among some gay rights activists.

The proposed measure, sponsored by a group called Love Honor Cherish, would overturn Proposition 8, last year’s initiative that reinstated a ban on same-sex marriage. The group is mounting a volunteer signature-gathering effort using Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and other social networking websites.

“We want our rights back,’’ said John Henning, a lawyer who is executive director of the group. “This is not about farm price supports. This is about whether I can be married or not.’’

Other gay rights supporters sympathize but worry that the group has neither the money nor the voters to win next year.

Jennifer C. Pizer, senior counsel with Lambda Legal, said Lambda would do everything it could to restore marriage rights for gays and lesbians. But she said a failed effort could further polarize voters and hurt and anger supporters of same-sex marriage.

Lambda Legal and other long-established gay rights groups are aiming for the 2012 ballot instead.

“We can predict with some reasonable confidence that we will be in position to win in 2012,’’ Pizer said.

Five states permit same-sex marriage as a result of court rulings or legislative actions. No state has passed an initiative to extend marriage rights to gays and lesbians.

Andy Pugno, a lawyer for the campaign that passed Proposition 8, said it was “virtually impossible’’ in California to qualify an initiative for the ballot through volunteer effort alone.

“There is no evidence that Californians have changed their minds since voting on this last year,’’ Pugno said.

The split among the gay rights groups over a California vote is similar to the divide over when to press a marriage challenge before the US Supreme Court.

Many gay rights lawyers opposed the filing of a federal lawsuit earlier this year to overturn Proposition 8, which was passed by 52.3 percent of voters. These lawyers worry that a loss at the Supreme Court could set back the marriage movement by years.

Despite their views, Chad Griffin, a Los Angeles-based political strategist, launched the federal lawsuit and hired legal giants Theodore B. Olson and David Boies to take the case. The suit is expected to go to trial next year in San Francisco.

Griffin questions whether a minority’s constitutional rights should be determined by a majority. He noted that a 1968 Gallup poll found that 73 percent of Americans disapproved of interracial marriage. The Supreme Court, in Loving v. Virginia, overturned a ban on interracial marriage the year before.

“Our fundamental constitutional rights should not be subject to a popularity contest and to who has the most money and the best ads,’’ Griffin said.

At least $1 million might be needed to qualify the marriage measure for the ballot and six times that to win a campaign, he said. Love Honor Cherish has less than $200,000 for signature gathering, Henning said.

“If one is making the decision to put this up for yet another vote of the people, which I no longer buy into, you better have the committed resources to pass it,’’ Griffin said.

Geoff Kors, executive director of Equality California, the largest statewide gay rights group, said he would not sign a petition to put the marriage question on next year’s ballot.

“But I have told our staff and our members to make their own decisions,’’ he added.

Kors said his group also wanted to target next year’s ballot, “but our research made it clear it was not feasible.’’ He said the 2012 presidential vote would draw younger voters, who tend to support marriage rights.

An analysis based on polling and demographics by 30 groups found a four-point advantage in 2012 over next year, Kors said.

Losing in 2010 would have consequences for later ballot measures and possibly the pending federal lawsuit, Kors said.