Calif. Marriage amendment drive fails

Just days away from the final deadline to get the Protect Marriage initiative on the ballot, supporters announced Dec. 23 that they failed to secure the 598,000 valid signatures to make the official California state ballot.

Signatures were due at the California Secretary of State’s office Dec. 27.

The group vows to pursue the issue in 2006, perhaps launching another initiative drive, and through legislation and the courts.

Peter Henderson, director of Public Policy and Strategic Program with California Family Council, said a large faith-based coalition has worked hard to get the petitions before the voters.

The coalition used direct mail to send out more than 1.25 million signature spaces. That number did not include copies of the petition or those downloaded directly from the Web site. Because of possible duplications, errors or ineligible signers, campaigns generally seek at least 800,000 signatures as a cushion.

Henderson said the process was especially difficult because of fund-raising constraints, including the November special election that featured Proposition 73, the parental notification measure for minors seeking abortion.

A great deal of money was funneled into that campaign, which lost by several percentage points.

“It’s been difficult raising money because of two hurricanes and the special election,” he said. “People’s hearts and pocketbooks were diverted.”

Because of the lack of funding, the group was not able to use professional signature gathers, which is considered essential for a successful campaign.

“This has been a good coalition-building process,” he said. “The coalition will continue to do whatever is needed to protect marriage between one man and one woman in California.”

Henderson said the coalition would also begin to work on other issues impacting Christian families.

A second initiative, VoteYesMarriage.com, appears close to launching its fellowship drive, although, as of press time, the Web site did not mention when the petitions would become available.

Although both measures sought the same aim, their approach was different, causing frustration among many in Christian circles that a single united front could not be orchestrated.

Protect Marriage has declined to endorse the second effort, led by Randy Thomasson, of Campaign for Children and Families and former state Assemblyman Larry Bowler.

“The coalition strongly believes that an initiative effort cannot be launched responsibly without first obtaining professionally conducted, statewide polling data showing that a majority of voters will approve the measure if it qualifies for the ballot,” Protect Marriage officials said in a news release. “The ProtectMarriage.com amendment is the only proposal for which such research has been done.

Massachusetts Marriage Amdendment
A successful marriage amendment petition drive in Massachusetts smashed a 20-year-old record for the most signatures ever gathered on a ballot question.

Just before Christmas, Massachusetts Secretary of State William F. Galvin certified 123,356 signatures for the constitutional marriage amendment, which essentially would reverse the state court's 2003 ruling that legalized "gay marriage." The previous record of 110,645 was set in 1985 on a tax proposal, The Boston Globe reported Dec. 22.

The 123,356 certified signatures are fewer than the 147,000 that local election clerks had certified in early December, but nonetheless still impressive. The amendment needed only 65,825 signatures.

Pro-family groups originally turned in 170,000 signatures. Invalid ones were tossed out.

"Considering that 170,000 signatures were collected mainly by volunteers in virtually all 351 cities and towns over a brief 60-day period, what the citizens of Massachusetts have done is nothing short of monumental,” Kris Mineau, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute, said in a statement.

The amendment now must garner the support of at least 25 percent of state legislators in two consecutive sessions. If it does that, it would be placed before voters in 2008.

The legislature's first vote is expected in May, the Massachusetts Family Institute said.

Homosexual activists played down the petition drive's success. Arline Isaacson, co-chairwoman of the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus, told the Globe that the petition drive was a "groundswell of fraud and deceit, not of voter insistence." She blamed paid signature gatherers for tricking voters into signing the petition.

Meanwhile, homosexual activists have launched a website with the name and address of every person who signed the petition. (The signatures are public information.) A letter to the editor in The Standard Times in New Bedford, Mass., championed the website: "Are your neighbors anti-gay bigots? Your relatives? Your elected officials? Your barber? How about your children's teachers? Find out."

Conservatives say the website amounts to intimidation. The Globe reported that Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, a Republican, and his wife signed the petition, as did former House speaker Thomas M. Finneran, a Democrat.

Amendment Faces Opposition in Minn.
Supporters of a constitutional marriage amendment in Minnesota face a tall task in the state Senate, which saw two amendment opponents win in recent special elections, Minnesota Public Radio reported.

The amendment passed the House with ease in 2005 but failed to receive a vote in the Senate, which is controlled by the Democratic Farmer-Labor Party (DFL). The two new senators are DFL members.

Conservatives have pressured Senate leaders to allow a vote on the issue. If it were to pass the Senate, it would go before voters.

"Will it come up? I'm sure the conservative Republicans will push the issue, but it's less likely that it finds its way to the ballot question in November now than it did last session," DFL Senate Majority Leader Dean Johnson told Minnesota Public Radio.

Tom Prichard, president of the conservative Minnesota Family Council, told MPR the amendment would pass the Senate if given a vote.

A May Star Tribune showed that 51 percent of Minnesotans said the state needed a marriage amendment. Forty-six percent "agreed strongly."

Published by Keener Communications Group, January 2006

Christian Examiner™, P.O. Box 2606 El Cajon, CA 92021 • 619-668-5100 • Fax 619-668-1115
Email: info@christianexaminer.com • Web site: www.christianexaminer.com