- The Washington Times - Sunday, July 22, 2007

The California Attorney General’s Office has approved two citizen initiatives to define marriage in the state constitution, but neither of the sponsoring groups has enough funds to start collecting signatures.

On Monday, Attorney General Edmund G. “Jerry” Brown Jr.’s office released a summary and title for VoteYesMarriage.com’s “Voters’ Right to Protect Marriage” initiative.

The four-sentence amendment “fully, securely and permanently” protects marriage as the union of one man and one woman, said Randy Thomasson, a leader of VoteYesMarriage.com and president of Campaign for Children and Families.

The measure forbids homosexual “marriage” and even includes a definition of a man as “an adult male human being who possesses at least one Y chromosome” and a woman as an adult female who “does not possess” such a chromosome. Such definitions are needed in state law because “some people don’t know the difference between a man and a woman anymore,” Mr. Thomasson said.

A separate marriage initiative, approved by Mr. Brown’s office on Tuesday, is from ProtectMarriage.com. The two-sentence measure mirrors the voter-passed Proposition 22 — “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California” — and specifies that it will not affect “other domestic relationships.”

These relationships presumably include California’s domestic partnership law, which extends many state marital rights to homosexual couples and heterosexual couples ages 62 and older.

To get their measures on a ballot, sponsors must turn in 694,354 valid signatures 150 days after the attorney general issues the official title and summary. This requirement means the collection of about 1 million signatures, and both groups are working to raise the estimated $1 million-plus needed for their campaigns.

VoteYesMarriage.com is airing radio ads in which state Assemblyman Larry Bowler asks for funding.

“Time is short. The California Supreme Court is scheming to create ‘same-sex marriages’ as early as next year,” he says, referring to the landmark homosexual “marriage” case now before the high court. A decision is expected next year.

This summer, Equality California Institute, a coalition of homosexual and transgender rights groups, is conducting a marriage-education campaign called Let California Ring.

They and traditional-values groups also are waiting to see if the California Senate follows the state Assembly’s lead and passes AB 43, a bill that makes marriage “gender neutral.” AB 43 is similar to another bill introduced by Assemblyman Mark Leno that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed in 2005.

Earlier this month, a Pew Research Center survey of 2,020 adults on marriage found that 69 percent believe that “a child needs a home with both a mother and a father to grow up happily,” 57 percent reject homosexual “marriage” and 50 percent view “gays and lesbian couples raising children” as “a bad thing for society.”