- The Washington Times - Monday, September 5, 2005

A bill legalizing homosexual “marriage” in California is scheduled to go up for its second vote in the state Assembly this week, amid vigorous lobbying.

“We intend to keep the Assembly members’ feet to the fire,” said Benjamin Lopez, a leader of the Traditional Values Coalition. “If they support marriage for one man and one woman, like their constituents voted, they will vote against AB 849.”

Mr. Lopez and his allies think California lawmakers legally cannot enact same-sex “marriage” because voters approved Proposition 22, which says only marriages involving one man and one woman are valid in California.

Homosexual rights supporters, however, think their message is the right one.

“We are so very close,” Assemblyman Mark Leno said last week after his bill to legalize same-sex “marriage” passed the state Senate.

“It would be very disappointing for [the Assembly] not to be able to stand up for civil rights,” he said.

In June, the Assembly rejected Mr. Leno’s bill by four votes.

Meanwhile, two same-sex “marriage”-related decisions are expected in Massachusetts this month.

Either today or tomorrow, Massachusetts Attorney General Tom Reilly is expected to issue his decision on whether to certify a constitutional marriage amendment filed by a citizens’ group called VoteOnMarriage.org.

Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, a Republican, supports the amendment, which must garner nearly 66,000 certified signatures and two legislative approvals before it can get on a 2008 ballot.

However, dozens of homosexual rights groups and lawyers have urged Mr. Reilly not to certify the amendment. They say it is unconstitutional in light of the 2003 Goodridge decision, which legalized same-sex “marriage” in Massachusetts, the groups say.

Meanwhile, on Sept. 14, the Massachusetts legislature is scheduled to meet in a constitutional convention to offer a second vote on a marriage amendment that passed last year.

The amendment, which would disallow same-sex “marriage” but create civil unions, is unpopular. However, if Mr. Reilly rejects VoteOnMarriage.org’s amendment, some lawmakers may decide to vote in favor of the civil-union amendment.

It’s also possible that this month the Washington State Supreme Court will issue its pivotal ruling on mandating same-sex “marriage” in that state.

Traditional-values groups hope the court will uphold the state’s Defense of Marriage Act, which was passed by a supermajority of lawmakers and clarifies that marriage involves only one man and one woman.

But homosexual rights groups hope the court will make Washington the second state to legalize same-sex “marriage” — especially since, unlike Massachusetts, Washington doesn’t have a residency law to block out-of-state couples from marrying there.

“We are all waiting — anticipating the decision with bated breath,” said Fran Dunaway, executive director of Equal Rights Washington in Seattle.

Copyright © 2019 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times welcomes your comments on Spot.im, our third-party provider. Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.


Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide