The anti-gay groups Vote Yes Marriage and Protect Marriage have submitted four separate constitutional initiatives to state Attorney General Jerry Brown's office; it is believed they are intended for the June 2008 ballot, though it is unknown whether all four will actually go before voters.

In late May, Brown's office received three proposed constitutional initiatives, one from Vote Yes Marriage and two from Protect Marriage. On June 14, the secretary of state's office approved Vote Yes Marriage's first initiative that was submitted in early May. Brown's office gave it the title "Marriage. Elimination of Domestic Partnership Rights. Constitutional Amendment."

"We are pleased that the attorney general accurately reflected how that one eliminates domestic partner benefits," said Geoffrey Kors, executive director of Equality California and executive committee member of Equality for All, a collaboration of seven LGBT and allied civil rights organizations that organized in 2005 and defeated the previous attempt of the two anti-gay groups to put two similar initiatives on the ballot.

According to Kors, the proposed initiatives are a cause for concern for Equality for All due to the vast financial resources of the anti-gay groups, especially the Protect Marriage initiatives, and the strategic target of the June 2008 ballot.

Gail Knight, the widow of the late state Senator Pete Knight, is the force behind Protect Marriage. Randy Thomasson, founder and president of the Campaign for Children and Families, is behind Vote Yes Marriage.

The secretary of state's office is expected to receive the three latest initiatives by July 17 if they are approved by the attorney general's office.

It is clear, Kors told the Bay Area Reporter, that with the marriage equality victory in Massachusetts on June 14, when the legislature rejected a state constitutional referendum restricting the definition of marriage to a union between a man and a woman, and with the recent proposed initiatives by Protect Marriage and Vote Yes Marriage targeting the June 2008 ballot, California is officially emerging as the battleground for marriage equality.

The bigger picture, noted Kate Kendell, executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights and an executive committee member of Equality for All, is the effect passing a constitutional amendment against marriage equality in California would have on LGBT civil rights and marriage equality across the nation.

"This would be catastrophic were it to be passed by the voters," said Kendell. "So we have to do everything possible to make sure that doesn't happen."

"They [the proposed initiatives] represent an element of our society that wants to write discrimination into our state constitution and keep LGBT people as second-class citizens," said out lesbian state Senator Christine Kehoe (D-San Diego), who told the B.A.R. that she's been in discussions with state and local LGBT organizations to coordinate a response if the initiatives qualify for the ballot. "These ballot initiatives must be taken seriously É we cannot afford to sit and watch how they fare."

Kehoe added, "I'm energized by the statewide effort called 'Let California Ring,' which will engage Californians across the state and inspire them to support marriage rights for LGBT couples."

The Let California Ring campaign is the Equality California Institute's new marriage equality education campaign that is being launched this summer.

Chromosome definition

Vote Yes Marriage, backed by Thomasson and former Republican Assemblyman Larry Bowler, submitted a second proposed initiative "The Voters' Right to Protect Marriage" on May 25 to the attorney general's office.

The language in this initiative is the same as Vote Yes Marriage's proposed initiative that was approved for circulation last month, except that it added clarification of the definition of man and woman. The proposed initiative defines a man and a woman as "a man is an adult male human being who possesses at least one inherited Y chromosome, and a woman is an adult female human being who does not possess an inherited Y chromosome."

On May 25, Protect Marriage submitted two proposed constitutional initiatives titled as the "California Marriage Protection Act." Both proposed initiatives focus solely on recognizing marriage in California as only between a man and a woman. The second initiative clarifies that it will not affect California domestic partnership laws.

Protect Marriage is supported by Gail Knight, whose late husband Pete Knight authored Proposition 22, which was approved by voters in 2000 and defines marriage as between one man and one woman in the family code. State Senator Dennis Hollingsworth (R-Murrieta); Peter Henderson, chairman of the ProtectMarriage.com executive committee; Mark A. Jansson; and Hak-Shing William Tam joined Gail Knight in submitting the proposed initiatives.

On behalf of Equality for All, Kors submitted a letter to Brown on June 22 requesting an appropriate title and summary for the Protect Marriage initiatives. In the letter, Kors points out the vague and inaccurate language used in the initiatives, such as, "protect" and "valid" and "recognized" and that the effect of these initiatives, if passed, would be to "enact a permanent marriage exclusion;" "would write into our constitution for the first time a rule mandating discrimination among married couples from other jurisdictions;" and would "take away" the rights of the voters, the legislature, and the courts.

According to Kors, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has stated that he will respect the courts. The consolidated California marriage cases are now before the state Supreme Court; a decision is not expected until next year.

Julie Soderlund, political spokeswoman for Schwarzenegger, told the B.A.R. on June 29 "the governor hasn't taken a position on any of the initiatives."

Showing the green

According to Kors, the Protect Marriage initiatives are being backed by anti-gay groups Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council, which combined with their political action groups, have over $140 million between them.

According to Vote Yes Marriage's Web site, it is looking to raise $2.5 million to put one or both of its proposed initiatives on the ballot.

Each initiative requires almost 700,000 valid signatures to qualify for the ballot, according to the Secretary of State's office.

Protect Marriage and Vote Yes Marriage did not return calls seeking comment by press time.

Equality for All has an estimated $77,000 leftover from the estimated $600,000 raised to defeat the initiatives in 2005, but they are looking at raising an estimated $8 million to $10 million in order to match Protect Marriage's and Vote Yes Marriage's campaigns, Kors said.

Kors is also concerned about both groups targeting the June 2008 ballot as a weak spot for low voter turnout due to the recent presidential primary change to February 2008 and the presidential elections in November. This will become a "campaign about turning out votes," Kors said.

Kors told the B.A.R. that he isn't sure if the two anti-gay groups will work together as they did in 2005.

"Clearly there's a disagreement between the right-wing groups whether or not they are going to go after marriage equality and/or domestic partnerships," said Kors. "It's not clear how this is going to split their resources."

For more information, visit http://www.equalityforall.com.