Knight Of Columbus Donate Big To Pass Prop 8

Equality California is reporting that the right-wing groups behind Proposition 8 received a $1M contribution from the Knights of Columbus.

The Catholic fraternal organization, based in CT, has also adopted a resolution calling for “legal and constitutional protection...for the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.”

Ellen And Portia To Tie The Knot

Ellen DeGeneres and Portia De Rossi, 35, will wed Saturday in California, according to Us Magazine. The pair are planning a small, intimate ceremony with only a few close friends and family.

Following the California Supreme Court's monumental ruling that same-sex couple's have the "right to marry," DeGeneres announced she planned to wed her longtime girlfriend.

DeGeneres reflected on their upcoming nuptials at the Daytime Emmy Awards in Hollywood in June.

"I think someday people will look back on this like women not having the right to vote and segregation and anything else that seems ridiculous that we don't all have the same rights," DeGeneres said.

Of the preparations, DeGeneres joked, "Planning a wedding is very stressful. It's crazy. My gardener is now invited."

DeGeneres and De Rossi began dating in December 2004.

California Marriage Equality Lawyers Recognized

Attorneys Shannon Minter and Therese Stewart have been named the recipients of the National Lesbian and Gay Law Association’s 2008 Dan Bradley Award.

Minter is the legal director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights and Stewart is San Francisco’s chief deputy city attorney. Both successfully fought to overturn California’s ban on same-sex marriage. Separately they also have been involved in a number of other key LGBT legal cases.

Minter has guided NCLR’s litigation and program work for over 10 years. He has been lead counsel in dozens of groundbreaking legal victories including the CA marriage case and Sharon Smith’s unprecedented victory in her wrongful death lawsuit.

Smith’s partner, Diane Whipple, was attacked and killed by two dogs in her apartment building in 2001. The owners of the dogs were later convicted of criminal negligence and Smith filed a civil suit. It became the first lawsuit in the country in which a same-sex partner was given survivor spousal standing in a wrongful death case.

In 2005, he was one of 18 people to receive the Ford Foundation’s “Leadership for a Changing World” award.

He received his J.D. from Cornell Law School in 1993.

Stewart is a former president of the Bar Association of San Francisco, where she established a mentoring program for at-risk youths.

Stewart also is a lesbian activist who years ago campaigned for acceptance and equal treatment for gay and lesbian lawyers in top San Francisco firms. She is a graduate University of California Berkeley School of Law.

Each year, through its Dan Bradley Award, the NLGLA recognizes individuals who have made a significant contribution to the struggle for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender equality.

How To Successfully Talk About Defeating Prop 8

ECCO received the following info prepared by Equality for All with the help of the folks over at Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD). Use this as a basis when you are talking to family, friends, neighbors, and co-workers.

Talking Points

Why do we need talking points?

The best way to reach a broad base of voters is to appeal to common values and reach common ground. Equality for All has conducted polls and extensive focus groups to build and test language that will resonate with people’s deeply held values and worldviews. Our goal is to reach a broad range of Californians in compelling ways that will persuade them to VOTE NO ON 8.

How does this work?

Ideas, and how they’re expressed, are at the center of all political conflict. When communicating our message, we run into trouble if we don’t take into account how differently people see the world. We make our biggest communications mistake when we only talk to our supporters and forget to talk to the people we need to move to our side. We need to reach as many people as possible to get the broadest public support. That means we need to use specific language, phrases, concepts, and approaches that have been proven to work.

Our goal is to frame the issue so it’s about something the majority of people agree with and care about. This means appealing to their deepest values. We need to be careful and deliberate so we don’t alienate people and lose the opportunity to have a conversation, a meaningful exchange of ideas.

What language should I use?

In extensive research, voters respond very well to the following language:
· Fundamental freedoms
· People should not be treated differently/unfairly
· Equal legal protections
· Regardless how you feel…(the Constitution shouldn't be used to treat people differently)

Whenever possible, incorporate this language. We know it resonates and moves people.

What words and phrases should I avoid?

There are words and phrases that don’t work as well as we would like them to, or as we believe they should. In extensive focus groups and polls, the following phrases were ineffective and even alienating in reaching swing voters:
· Discrimination
· Overturning the Court Decision (avoid referencing court whenever possible)
· Thousands are getting married

Also, we have learned that talking about children, unless it is in the context of your own family, is difficult for non-LGBT fluent audiences to understand. Unless you are telling a story about your personal family, it is best to avoid bringing up children.

What are the most effective messages?

1. The California Constitution should not be changed to treat people unfairly.
2. Californians believe that government has no business telling people who can and cannot get married. Californians will vote no on this amendment because they want government to stay out of their personal lives.
3. People should not be treated differently. Californians agree. The freedom to marry is about fairness.
4. The Constitution says that we should not single out any groups and treat them unfairly/or treat them differently.
5. We hope everyone will join us in voting No in November — it's a simple matter of fairness.
6. All loving and committed couples should have equal protections.
7. Regardless of how you feel about marriage for same-sex couples, it’s wrong to vote on peoples’ fundamental rights and freedoms.

What is the best way to communicate these messages?

The most powerful ways to create change and build support is to share your personal story. When you connect with your families, friends, coworkers, neighbors, and community members, please take a moment to talk about how important it is to defeat Prop 8. Personalize this as much as possible—share your experience as an LGBT person, as a couple, as a family, and as an ally. By using the talking points above, your personal story will be all the more effective.

Massachusetts Repeals Law, Allows All Out Of State Same-Sex Marriages

Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick, a Democrat whose daughter has come out as a lesbian, signed a measure repealing a 1913 law that banned marriages not considered valid in the couples' home states.

The MA House of Representatives approved the repeal by a vote of 118-35. The state Senate approved it earlier this month.

In 2004, MA became the first U.S. state to permit legal marriages of same-sex couples, but then-Gov. Mitt Romney told state officials to obey the 1913 law, which dates back to a time when some American states banned interracial marriages.

In June, California began marrying same-sex couples. It issues marriage licenses to couples from other states.

ECCO Nuptial Bliss Wedding Reception!

On Sunday, July 27th, ECCO will be celebrating Full Marriage Equality at our Nuptial Bliss Wedding Reception.

Brian Chase, Senior Staff Attorney for Lambda Legal, will be welcoming guests at the home of Retired Senator Joe and Diane Dunn (1911 Heliotrope, Santa Ana, CA) from 3pm to 5pm.

The festivities will include champagne, hors d'oeuvres, dancing, and favors. The event will be $55/person or $100/couple.

Sponsorships are available at three levels: Gold Sponsor ($1000) admits 8 guests; Silver Sponsor ($500) admits 4 guests; and Bronze Sponsor ($250) admits 2 guests. Sponsorships also include one ceremony* (if desired), one toast, one framed 5x7 photograph, mini photo album (6 photos) and one song choice for that special dance.

*Ceremonies will be performed by an ordained nondenominational minister or credentialed official. These MUST be arranged with Susan Freeze (714) 267-8752 prior to the event!

Come celebrate and help ECCO raise funds to defeat November's Proposition 8.

Contact us at eccopac@yahoo.com or (949) 975-0866.

Activists Begin Boycott Of San Diego Hyatt

About 200 GLBT activists and union members gathered in front of the Manchester Grand Hyatt San Diego on July 18 to launch a boycott of the hotel. The hotel's owner, prominent local businessman Doug Manchester, donated $125,000 to the campaign that placed an initiative on the November ballot to amend the California Constitution to undo the state Supreme Court's legalization of same-sex marriage.

Read and see more at Rex Wockner.

San Francisco Mayor Newsom Considering Run For Governor

Just weeks after the California Supreme Court finished a job started four years ago by San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom and legalized same-sex marriages, the controversial and seemingly fearless politician announced he had launched an exploratory bid for governor.

The 40-year-old, two-term mayor was the first to toss his name into the ring as a possible Democratic candidate to succeed Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger, who is barred by term limits from running again in 2010. Newsom said he would decide by the end of the year if he would run.

Newsom made headlines in 2004 when he ordered the city of San Francisco to issue a marriage license to same-sex couples. Last month, he married long-time couple Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon, whom he had first married in 2004. That marriage was overturned when the Supreme Court struck down Newsom’s ruling. On June 16, Martin and Lyon became the first same-sex couple legally married in the state of California.

Schwarzenegger Says Proposition 8 "Is A Waste Of Time"

Transcript from the June 29, 2008 edition of NBC's Meet the Press:

TOM BROKAW: You have a lot of propositions on the ballot again this fall. One of them would mean a constitutional ban on gay marriages. Do you support that?

GOV. ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER: No, not at all. As a matter of fact, I think the Supreme Court made a decision there. It was apparently unconstitutional to stop anyone from getting married. It's like 1948, the interracial marriage, when the Supreme Court of California has, you know, decided it was unconstitutional and then later on the Supreme Court of the United States followed, I think 10 or 12 years later. So I think it is, it's good that California lead -- is leading in this way. I personally believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman. But at the same time I think that my, you know, belief, I don't want to force on anyone else, so I think we should stay with the decision of the Supreme Court and move forward. There are so many other more important issues that we have to address in California. So I think to spend any time on this initiative I think is a waste of time.

Obama Opposes CA Marriage Amendment

Barack Obama expressed his opposition to California's Proposition 8 in a recent letter to the Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club is in San Francisco.

Dear Friends,

Thank you for the opportunity to welcome everyone to the Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club's Pride Breakfast and to congratulate you on continuing a legacy of success, stretching back thirty-six years. As one of the oldest and most influential LGBT organizations in the country, you have continually rallied to support Democratic candidates and causes, and have fought tirelessly to secure equal rights and opportunities for LGBT Americans in California and throughout the country.

As the Democratic nominee for President, I am proud to join with and support the LGBT community in an effort to set our nation on a course that recognizes LGBT Americans with full equality under the law. That is why I support extending fully equal rights and benefits to same sex couples under both state and federal law. That is why I support repealing the Defense of Marriage Act and the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy, and the passage of laws to protect LGBT Americans from hate crimes and employment discrimination. And that is why I oppose the divisive and discriminatory efforts to amend the California Constitution, and similar efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution or those of other states.

For too long, issues of LGBT rights have been exploited by those seeking to divide us. It's time to move beyond polarization and live up to our founding promise of equality by treating all our citizens with dignity and respect. This is no less than a core issue about who we are as Democrats and as Americans.

Finally, I want to congratulate all of you who have shown your love for each other by getting married these last few weeks. My thanks again to the Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club for allowing me to be a part of today's celebration. I look forward to working with you in the coming months and years, and I wish you all continued success.

Sincerely,

Barack Obama

McCain Backs Initiative Barring Marriage Equality

[Sourced from a 6/28/8 article in The Sacramento Bee]

GOP presidential candidate John McCain has endorsed the November ballot measure to ban same-sex marriage in California. The endorsement was announced on ProtectMarriage.com.

"I support the efforts of the people of California to recognize marriage as a unique institution between a man and a woman, just as we did in my home state of Arizona," McCain said in a statement released by the Protect Marriage campaign. "I do not believe judges should be making these decisions."

McCain endorsed a 2006 Arizona initiative defining marriage as only between a man and a woman – which was defeated – but voted against a federal constitutional amendment against marriage equality.

Arizona Will Try To Ban Marriage — Again

[Sourced from an article in The Arizona Republic]

In the final hours of one of the longest AZ state legislative sessions on record, state senators approved a measure sending a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage to the fall ballot.

The long-anticipated vote came just before adjournment and followed hours of angry, raucous debate in which the legislative rule book was used as a weapon to both stall the vote (Democrats) and cut short debate (Republicans). Senators on both sides of the aisle and of the issue lamented a meltdown in the higher chamber, as most of the day's work was scrapped so that the marriage amendment could be voted upon while key senators were present.

After the vote, conservative activists rejoiced that voters would get a chance to vote on the issue this fall. A similar measure, which also banned governments from offering benefits to employees' domestic partners, gay or straight, failed at the polls in 2006.

Long fight over marriage

Supporters pushed a vote on the measure, SCR 1042, on Wednesday in the Senate, but it went down in defeat, as a key supporter Sen. Karen Johnson, R-Mesa, was out of town. But they succeeded in a motion authorizing the measure to be reconsidered.

Johnson arranged to be back for the vote Friday and another absent conservative, Sen. Pamela Gorman, R-Anthem, flew back into town for the day's votes, giving supporters the 16 votes necessary to pass the referendum.

With that vote looming, Democratic opponents staged a filibuster, explaining and re-explaining votes on bills and amendments. An amendment to a vehicular bill that would bar license plate covers, dominated the sometimes-hostile debate for hours.

Mormons Don't Separate Church And State

A letter sent to Mormon bishops and signed by church president Thomas S. Monson and his two top counselors calls on Mormons to donate "means and time" to the ballot measure. A note on the letter dated June 20 says it should be read during church services on June 29, but the letter was published Saturday on several Web sites.

The LDS church will work with a coalition of churches and other conservative groups that put the California Marriage Protection Act on the Nov. 4 ballot to assure its passage, the letter states.

"The church's teachings and position on this moral issue are unequivocal. Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and the formation of families is central to the Creator's plan for His children," the four-paragraph letter states.

"We ask that you do all you can to support the proposed constitutional amendment by donating of your means and time to ensure that marriage in California is legally defined as being between a man and a woman," church leaders say in the letter. "Our best efforts are required to preserve the sacred institution of marriage."

California Mormons — there are more than 750,000, according to a church almanac — have heard and heeded similar calls from their leaders before. In 2000, a letter from the pulpit asked members to give time and money in support of Proposition 22, a ballot measure prohibiting California from legally recognizing gay marriages performed outside the state. It passed but was later struck down by the courts.

The LDS church also fought same-sex marriage legislation in other states during the 1990s. As recently as 2006, it signed a letter to Congress seeking an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would define marriage as being between a man and a woman.

Orange County Register Supports Marriage Equality

This is an editorial from the June 22, 2008 issue of the Orange County Register:

Marriage shouldn't be government's concern
But since it is, there's no reason not to extend the recognition to same-sex couples

Perhaps because leaders on both sides of the issue urged supporters to avoid undue disruption, the first few days of legal same-sex marriages in California went reasonably smoothly. An expensive and potentially acrimonious political tussle may be brewing behind the scenes, but both the celebrations and protests so far have been relatively low-key.

The uncertainty looming on the horizon is a measure on the November ballot that would declare that the state recognizes only marriages between a man and a woman. Proposition 22, passed in 2000, declaring that marriage is only between a man and a woman, was a statute. The California Supreme Court decided in May that the law violated state constitutional provisions guaranteeing equal protection of the laws to all. The measure in November is a constitutional amendment, so it would nullify the court's decision.

Our preference would be for the government not to be involved in marriage, the most fundamental of institutions in a civil society. Why two people who want to be married should be required to get a license from the state is something of a mystery. Marriage existed long before the California or U.S. governments came into being and will continue long after they have been consigned to history. Whether a marriage is valid should be up to the people involved and the churches, synagogues, mosques or other religious institutions that choose to perform them or not.

As a practical matter, however, the government has so entwined itself into our daily lives that state recognition is important. Filing taxes as a married couple or as individuals makes a difference, as does the ability to own real estate, make end-of-life decisions or adopt children. Considering all this and the importance of equality before the law, the high court's decision was justified.

It is argued that allowing same-sex marriage will infringe on the religious freedom of people who have a religiously based objection to it. It is hard to see the validity. Church and state are correctly separate in this country, and the fact that the state recognizes a union as a marriage doesn't mean that a religious person or institution has to recognize it or approve of it. It's hard to imagine a minister, rabbi or imam who objects to same-sex marriages being forced to perform one, and we would be the first to object if anybody tried it.

Over time same-sex couples will find, as has been the case in Massachusetts, where such marriages have been legal for four years, (and as heterosexual couples know all too well) that marriage is not always easy. Married people disagree about all kinds of things, from money to recreational preferences, and have to find ways to work out their differences.

The relatively smooth transition to allowing same-sex marriages may be the calm before the storm. Still, it's nice that it has been calm so far.

Los Angeles Times Supports Marriage Equality

This is an opinion piece from the June 17, 2008 issue of the Los Angeles Times:

The right to love
Same-sex unions do not diminish the bonds of marriage, they uphold them.

Across California today, in mass public weddings and in small, private services, gay and lesbian couples will exchange official vows of undying love and wedlock. With the sanction of the state Supreme Court, these couples stand together as full citizens at last.

Their long odyssey to reach this day serves to remind us why people marry at all, especially in an era of casual relationships. As any married person can attest, marriage is significant precisely because it is difficult. True, it confers certain public protections, but even more, it requires personal sacrifices. If mutual affection and appreciation were enough to sustain relationships across the years, there would be no need for solemn vows of fidelity. Those vows protect many a marriage through many a rough patch; when two people agree to enter into such a union, it by rights should carry the name and honor of marriage, whether it's between people of opposite sex or between a man and a man, or a woman and a woman.

Opponents of same-sex marriage often deplore this expansion of the meaning of marriage because they view it as threatening to traditional unions. As they use this day as a rallying point for a proposed amendment to the state Constitution to ban such marriages, it's time to ask them directly: How does marriage of one type threaten others? Why do many heterosexuals feel that the beauty of their own marriage vows is in no way changed by today's weddings, while others feel theirs have somehow been diminished?

Perhaps the next few months will ease these fears, as same-sex couples begin their married lives together. Those couples will settle into communities without disorder or threat; they will bring legal protection to their bonds of love. Those bonds can only be good for society — children gain from being raised by married parents, and communities are stronger when residents are legally committed to one another. As more and more Californians marry, society will grow stronger, not weaker.

That's no doubt why opponents sought a stay of the court's ruling until after the election. They know that as same-sex marriages become commonplace, the fears about them will fade, and eventually we will wonder what all the fuss was about. In the meantime, opponents will resort to hyperbole and fear. Take this missive last week from the Alliance for Marriage, issued in response to the announcement that the state of New York would recognize the unions performed in California:

"The governor of New York state will declare hundreds of years of marriage law in New York to be null and void. ... The governor of New York state will force California-style 'gay marriage' on all the families and children of his own state."

It's a fairly reliable indicator of a bad argument when its proponent is forced to overstate the case in order to make it. The above surely qualifies. Same-sex couples are not upending the institution of marriage; nor are their supporters. Rather, they are engaged in a profoundly conservative act: They ask not to abolish marriage but to uphold it.

Some religious organizations won't perform these marriages or recognize these unions — that's their constitutional right. But the government, which has obligations of equity, may not engage in the discrimination that religions are allowed. As long as it bestows the privileges of marriage on some couples, it must bestow them on all.

In California, the initiative process allows voters to amend the state Constitution directly, and unfortunately, a measure on the November ballot will give them the chance. The question won't be whether same-sex marriage is right or wrong — that's a matter of personal conviction — but whether those who believe it is wrong should have the power to deny marriage to those who seek its protections.

Put another way: Many Californians undoubtedly object to unwed couples who have and raise children together, but no constitutional amendment prevents that, whatever the moral calculus.

To those who insist that an unevolving morality undergirds our state and federal constitutions, we remind them that not so long ago, many Americans believed with passionate conviction that it was a sin, a threat to families and a violation of the law for people of different races to marry.

The 1959 ruling of a Virginia state court judge to deny this right to a lack woman and a white man aptly summarized the fervor with which opponents of miscegenation drew on tradition and religion to support their views:

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents," trial judge Leon Bazile wrote. "And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."

The U.S. Supreme Court struck down that ruling in 1967; on that happy day, 16 states were forced to abandon their laws banning interracial marriage. Today, interracial couples go about their lives without legal threat; some no doubt still feel the sting of disapproval. But those who would look askance on those lawfully wedded couples do so without the state to reinforce their bigotry. Our courts, certainly our supreme courts, exist not to assess God's will but to enforce the precepts of our constitutions, including the insistence that all Americans — black or white, male or female, straight or gay — are entitled to equal protection and the due process of our laws.

The California Supreme Court affirmed that principle last month and delivered the eloquent basis for today's ceremonies. As the state's voters watch the celebrations in the coming months, they should enjoy the sight of fellow citizens availing themselves of a public institution, that of marriage. These celebrations allow us to share in the newlyweds' happiness, to join in acknowledging a milestone of joy and lifelong commitment. And they prompt at least one more question for those who disapprove: How can the state's blessing on these acts of love in any way diminish us?

Kern County Halts All Civil Weddings

Heterosexual couples are rushing to get married in a conservative California county that plans to halt all civil wedding ceremonies as gay marriage is set to be legalized.

Kern County Clerk Ann Barnett says Friday is the last day the county will perform civil weddings.

Starting Tuesday, when the California Supreme Court's order legalizing same-sex marriage takes effect, Kern will issue new gender-neutral marriage licenses as required by law. But couples seeking to get hitched will have to go somewhere else for the ceremony.

Barnett says the increased demand for ceremonies would overwhelm her staff and pose office security risks. She made the announcement after learning she could not marry only couples of her choosing.

Bishop Robinson Gets Hitched

The first openly gay Episcopal bishop Rt. Rev. V. Gene Robinson was legally joined to Mark Andrew, his partner of 20 years, in a civil ceremony Saturday, the Episcopal Diocese of New Hampshire announced. Civil unions became legal in New Hampshire this year.

The union was performed five years to the day after New Hampshire Episcopalians elected him as their bishop. The civil and a following religious service of thanksgiving were both held at St. Paul's Church in Concord.

Amendment Backers Are Giving Big Money

Bakersfield carrot farmer William Bolthouse donated $100,000 to an initiative aiming to fight gay marriage — a measure that will appear on the Nov. 4 ballot along with the presidential race.

The National Organization for Marriage California donated $700,000 to the campaign. One of the organization’s largest financial contributors includes Bolthouse, who declined to comment about his donation Tuesday.

The measure’s proponents said the campaign to promote the initiative may exceed $30 million. Supporters have spent about $1.8 million to collect signatures and publicize the initiative, according to campaign filings.

Other supporters include San Diego developer Terry Caster ($172,000); hotel developer Manchester Financial Group of San Diego ($125,000); Fieldstead and Co. of Irvine ($400,000) and Knights of Columbus Headquarters in Connecticut ($250,000).

CA Supreme Court Refuses To Stay Decision On Marriage Equality

Source: The Associated Press

California's highest court Wednesday refused to stay its decision legalizing same-sex marriage in the state, clearing the final hurdle for gay couples to start tying the knot this month.

Conservative religious and legal groups had asked the California Supreme Court to stop its May 15 order requiring state and local officials to sanction same-sex unions from becoming effective until voters have the chance to consider the issue in November. The justices' decisions typically become final after 30 days.

An initiative to ban gay marriage has qualified for the Nov. 4 ballot. Its passage would overrule the court's decision by amending the state constitution to limit marriage to a man and a woman.

In arguing for a delay, the amendment's sponsors predicted chaos if couples married in the next few months, only to have the practice halted at the ballot box.

The four justices who denied the stay request were the same judges who joined in the majority opinion that found withholding marriage from same-sex couples constituted discrimination. The three dissenting justices said they thought a hearing on whether the stay should be granted was warranted.

The majority did not elaborate on its reasons for denying the stay, but simply issued a one-page order saying its original ruling on marriage would be final at 5 p.m. on June 16.

Wednesday's denial clears the way for gay couples in the nation's most populous state to get married starting June 17, when state officials have said counties must start issuing new gender-neutral marriage licenses.

Anti Marriage Equality Amendment Qualifies For November Ballot

Source: AP via Yahoo! News:

An initiative that would again outlaw gay marriage in California has qualified for the November ballot, the Secretary of State announced Monday.

California Secretary of State Debra Bowen said a random check of signatures submitted by the measure's sponsors showed that they had gathered enough names for it to be put to voters.

The measure would amend the state constitution to "provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

If approved by a majority of voters on Nov. 4, the amendment would overturn the recent California Supreme Court ruling that legalized same-sex marriage in the state. It is similar to gay marriage bans that have been adopted in 26 other states.

—SNIP—

If the marriages proceed during the next five months, it is unclear whether they would be nullified if the amendment passes. Some legal scholars have said the state Supreme Court might get called on again to settle that question.

Kate Kendell, executive director of the San Francisco-based National Center for Lesbian Rights, said gay marriage advocates have already launched a campaign to defeat the measure.

"There is just so much at stake, now, in terms of what kind of state we are going to live in and what values we are going to uphold," Kendell said.

To qualify for the ballot, the measure needed 694,354 petition signatures, an amount equal to 8 percent of the votes cast during the last governor's race.

Proponents submitted 1,120,801 signatures in late April, and county clerks determined the measure qualified by verifying the validity of 3 percent of the signatures they received, according to Bowen.

Recent polls have found California voters are about evenly split on whether gay couples should be allowed to marry.