Keywords: same-sex marriage, constitutional amendment, Prop. 8, California Marriage Protection Amendment, marriage, lesbian, gay, LGBT, GLBT, diversity

When the California Supreme Court decided in May that the state discriminated against same-sex couples by not legally recognizing their marriages, it appeared the state's highest court had the last word in the debate over same-sex marriage.

But before the ink dried on the decision, opponents of same-sex marriage collected the signatures needed to put a ban on same-sex marriages on the state's November ballot as Prop. 8: The California Marriage Protection Amendment. If it passes, the state constitution would read: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in California." It would not act retroactively, however.

Opponents of same-sex marriage are banking on the amendment because the supreme court's decision overturned a previous statute, Prop. 22, that they thought effectively banned same-sex marriage. "The supreme court's decision to legalize same-sex marriage did not just overturn the will of California voters, it also redefined marriage for the rest of society, without ever asking the people themselves to accept this decision," reads the web site Protect Marriage, which supports Prop. 8.

Protect Marriage says the supreme court's decision could force schools to teach students that same-sex marriage is equivalent to opposite-sex marriage. "The court decision has opened the door to any kind of 'marriage,'" reads Protect Marriage's web site. "This undermines the value of marriage altogether at a time when we should be restoring marriage, not undermining it."

Yes, the battle over Prop. 8 is fierce. Already, Protect Marriage and other supporters of the measure went to court to get its ballot title changed. They feared the title given by the state's Democratic Attorney General and former Gov. Jerry Brown would prejudice voters against it. (Brown is one of California's most liberal elected officials.) The ballot title, as prepared by Brown, is "Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry." Brown changed it after the supreme court's decision reasoning that Prop. 8 eliminated a right the court recognized same-sex couples have. A lower court upheld Brown's title as correct.

"[Prop. 8] is monkeying around with the core of the [state] constitution, which exists in large part to protect minorities," Shannon Price Minter, legal director for the National Center for Lesbian Rights, told The San Francisco Chronicle.

An amendment barring same-sex marriages would be a constitutional disaster for California, because unlike a statute that can be revised by the legislature or overturned by the courts, an amendment is tougher to overturn and would raise the question of whether the constitution protects everyone equally.

"[Prop. 8] would represent a very drastic change in the most basic part of the constitution, which is that all laws have to apply equally to everyone," Minter told The San Francisco Chronicle.

So the fight rages on with each side trying to raise as much money as possible. On Tuesday the sponsor of Prop. 8 announced receipt of their largest contribution, a $1 million donation from the Knights of Columbus, a conservative volunteer organization in the Roman Catholic Church. That was in addition to the $250,000 the Knights gave Prop. 8 supporters in January. Meanwhile, Bruce Bastian, founder of the WordPerfect software company, donated $1 million to help defeat Prop. 8.

Where Do the Voters Stand?

A slim majority of California voters say they'll vote against Prop. 8. The most recent poll, conducted by the Field Poll in July, shows 51 percent of Californians are against the ban, while 42 percent are in favor of it. Some 7 percent are undecided. Moreover, 63 percent of Democrats said they would vote against the ban, while 68 percent of Republicans said they would vote for it.

The same-sex-marriage debate is not unique to California. In the last two decades, the United States has seen a dramatic shift in the legal recognition of same-sex couples. Since 1997, 10 states and the District of Columbia have granted some form of statewide recognition to same-sex couples. Along with California, Massachusetts allows same-sex couples full access to marriage. And nearly a quarter of the U.S. population lives in a state with some form of legal recognition for same-sex couples, reports the Williams Institute.

The Williams Institute also found the following:

• More than 85,000 same-sex couples in the United States have entered into a legal relationship since 1997.
• In the states that provide legal recognition, more than 40 percent of same-sex couples have married, entered a civil union or registered their relationships.
• Female same-sex couples are more likely than male couples to seek legal recognition.
• Approximately two-thirds of legally recognized same-sex couples are female.
• Same-sex couples who have sought legal recognition are generally younger than opposite-sex married couples.
• Same-sex couples are more likely to seek formal recognition when such recognition confers more of the legal rights and benefits of marriage. In states that have offered all or most of such rights, 21 percent of couples have sought legal recognition in the first year it was offered, compared to only 10 percent in states that provide a more limited set of rights.

Before the California Supreme Court made its decision in favor of same-sex marriages, the Williams Institute studied their potential to boost the state's revenue. Spending by California's resident same-sex couples on their weddings, and by out-of-state couples on tourism and their weddings, could boost California's economy by more than $683.6 million over the next three years.

According to the Williams Institute:

• Over the next three years, the direct spending by resident and out-of-state same-sex couples will create and sustain more than 2,178 new jobs in California.
• Over the next three years, the direct spending from same-sex couples on weddings and tourism will generate more than $63.8 million in revenue for state and local governments.
• The weddings from in-state and out-of-state couples will generate approximately $8.8 million in marriage-license fees for California counties.
• Spending on weddings by couples living in California, and tourism and weddings by couples from outside of California, will generate more than $55.1 million in state and local sales-tax revenues and transient occupancy-tax revenues.

"This estimate is conservative in that it does not include increased revenues from many other taxes that are harder to estimate, such as California's motor vehicle fuel tax, earnings taxes, property taxes, excise tax on alcoholic beverages or taxes on indirect spending or earnings," reads the Williams Institute's report.

Click here to read The San Francisco Chronicle's coverage of Prop. 8.

Click here to read the Williams Institute's report "The Impact of Extending Marriage to Same-Sex Couples on the California Budget."

Click here to read the Williams Institute's report "Marriage, Registration and Dissolution by Same-Sex Couples in the U.S."

Readers' Comments