Proponents of same-sex marriage are considering 24 different versions of a ballot initiative that could be brought before California voters as soon as 2010 to overturn Proposition 8 and restore same-sex marriage.

Fernando Lopez of Marriage Equality USA

Reporting fresh polling data, Fernando Lopez, a national board member of Marriage Equality USA, said it appears California voters would reject an initiative to “reinstate the right of same-sex couples to marry” by 54 to 42 percent. But if a clause is added to protect religious institutions, the result is completely reversed, with voters supporting 52 to 48 percent. If additional language is added limiting teaching about same-sex marriage in schools, support increases to 58 percent.

Charles Pratt, a local civil rights attorney and “queer activist,” predicted that the marriage equality movement would advance state by state until there was enough support that an appropriate case could be brought before the U.S. Supreme Court to establish marriage rights on a federal level. “If you look at the timeline and the change in attitudes,” he told the group, “there’s been a seismic shift… The other side is on the defensive now.”

Lopez and Pratt were the guest speakers at the June 11 EDC meeting, discussing “Marriage Equality: Where to Now?” Their presentation reviewed the recent history of marriage rights and strategies being considered to overturn Proposition 8, passed in November 2008, which eliminated the right of same-sex couples to marry in California.

Lopez focused on political efforts to change minds and gain support. He said marriage equality supporters had begun “a very targeted campaign” using street canvassing in busy locations to “find supporters in non-supportive areas.” Those new supporters are then asked to walk their neighborhoods in precincts where 45 to 55 percent of voters supported Proposition 8. “That one-on-one contact is what changes people’s minds,” he said. Those contacted usually raise religious concerns, fears about school teaching, and are afraid for the safety of children. When those issues are identified, trained callers contact the voter four to six weeks later to seek a more lengthy discussion. Using this method, marriage equality supporters hope to gain enough “yes” votes to pass an initiative.

Whether that initiative would be put before voters in 2010 or 2012 remains to be decided, Lopez said. 2010 is attractive because California will elect its next Governor, and the Democratic candidates all support same-sex marriage. There is even talk that some Republican candidates may also be in support. However, the voter turnout will be smaller than in a Presidential election year like 2012. However, marriage equality proponents are not sure if President Obama, who supports equal rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people but does not support same-sex marriage, will be of any help during a campaign that year.

Civil rights attorney Charles Pratt

Pratt traced the history of marriage equality (click here to see his review), beginning with the 1948 California Supreme Court decision that declared marriage a fundamental right, and said that interracial marriage could not be prohibited. It took until 1967 for the U.S. Supreme Court to affirm that ruling, in a different case, on a national level. Through a 2003 U.S. Supreme Court case that established privacy rights for same-sex relationships, and a series of state court rulings in Massachusetts, California and Iowa, he established that “the pace has been picking up” toward marriage equality. Marriage is now widely considered to be a fundamental right, Pratt said “It’s not debatable, though people on the (political) right will assert that it is, wrongly.”

A recent effort to bring a marriage equality case before the U.S. Supreme Court “will take years” and may not be necessary by the time it comes before the justices, he said. He explained that the delay may be a good thing, as many feel the Court is not ready to issue a positive decision at this time and with the current justices.

He focused on recent California Supreme Court decisions. The May 2008 decision that permitted same-sex marriage in the state also defined LGBT people as a “suspect class,” meaning “it is almost impossible for the state to justify discrimination.” “That was a very powerful precedent that is often overlooked,” he explained.

And in the May 2009 decision confirming that Proposition 8 was constitutional, Pratt reported that the justices said “this decision doesn’t represent our feelings on same-sex marriage – it represents our view of the law.” He said “taken on a very narrow basis, the initiative process was proper, and, in my own words, (they said) you can use the initiative process for the majority to take fundamental rights away from a minority.” He mentioned that the single dissent, from Justice Moreno, said the majority should not have that right. “It this what we intend for our constitution?” Pratt asked.

“I’m very confident that in the long run we win,” Pratt said. “The more work we do the shorter the long run becomes.”