Same-Sex Slugfest In California

Gay rights opponents Thursday filed a proposed amendment to the California state Constitution that would ban same-sex marriage and strip domestic partners of most spousal benefits.

The move comes after California lawmakers last week rejected a similar constitutional amendment, and follows a March ruling by a judge in San Francisco who said state laws prohibiting homosexuals from marrying are unconstitutional.

"The bad guys here are the judges and the politicians. The people are frustrated," Randy Thomasson, organizer of a group called VoteYesMarriage.com, said outside the state Capitol. "The people are ready to protect marriage once and for all."

The amendment's sponsors must submit nearly 600,000 signatures from voters to the California Secretary of State to qualify the measure for the June 2006 ballot.

Under the proposed amendment, same-sex couples still would be allowed to register as domestic partners, but most of the privileges and responsibilities the state has provided for such unions would be taken away. The government of the state of California and local governments, for example, would no longer be allowed to provide health coverage for the partners of their gay employees.

Gay rights supporters describe the measure as among the most extreme attempts nationwide to block the gains same-sex couples have made since Massachusetts legalized same-sex marriage last year. If passed, it would make California the 20th state with a constitutional prohibition against gay marriage.

"It's absolutely ahead of the pack in its viciousness," said Thalia Zepatos of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.

Massachusetts has allowed same-sex marriage since May 2004. Vermont has offered civil unions to gays since 2000; Connecticut will begin offering civil unions in October.

Since Jan. 1, domestic partners in California have had all the rights and responsibilities of marriage conferred by the state except the ability to file joint income taxes.

Last week, a federal judge in Nebraska overturned the same-sex marriage ban adopted in that state in November after ruling its "broad prescriptions," which included limiting public employee benefits to married spouses, went "far beyond merely defining marriage as between a man and a woman."

By Brian Melley and Lisa Leff