Prop 8: Why don't we put OUR OWN amendment on the ballot?

[Independent_Voice]

< cross-posted in the "California" forum >

I've been reading a lot of online reactions from so many of my fellow LGBTs and straight allies, regarding the disappointment, anger, fear, distress, et. al. over Proposition 8 passing.

Whether it's on LiveJournal, or people in my LGBT support group, people are understandably really, really DEPRESSED.

Obviously, as a gay male I don't agree with Proposition 8, and I fully desire for same-sex marriage to be legal -- not only in California, but in all 50 states.

However, as I keep hearing people lament over the issue, the same thought keeps going through my head: why don't we, as LGBT people along with our straight allies, put OUR OWN proposition on the ballot in California for either the 2010 midterms or the 2012 General Election?

In the state of California, all you need to do to get a Proposition on the ballot is collect 600,000 legitimate signatures (the Secretary of State's office recommends that groups collect 1,000,000 in case some of the signatures collected cannot be verified).

Why not put an amendment before California voters that would amend our State Constitution to allow for and guarantee a civil union (specified spousal rights) between any two consenting adults who desire one?

It could read something like this:

Amends the California state constitution as follows:

Any two consenting adults, who are legal residents of the state of California, shall have access to formal protections that recognize and designate their domestic parity as mutual beneficiaries through a nondenominational union within state borders. Such a public union shall include, but not be limited to: joint inheritance upon death, reciprocal authority for power-of-attorney, hospital visitation, state income tax benefits and obligations, public health benefits, and other such automatic legal incidents to be facilitated by the state legislature. Private businesses, religious houses-of-worship, and sovereign individuals shall NOT be forced into recognizing these unions. Consenting legal adult residents of California shall not be denied these fundamental, secular privileges and responsibilities based on any non-indictable racial, sexual, ethnic, gender, religious, generational, or socioeconomic differences that exist between the two individuals who exclusively comprise each contractual union.

Obviously, one could simplify the language by condensing it somewhat for the average voter; but how would it be difficult to pass something like this with the general public as long as it didn't involve the word "marriage"?

It would also go a long way toward making the case that people are indeed generally supportive of basic spousal rights for same-sex couples, and it's really just the word "marriage" that's getting in the way (re: all of these battles over state constitutional amendments).

[Divine Discontent]

1. that would probably work, and, if it is came at in the right manner the next time

we possibly could put "marriage" and win in Cali since it was so close, and have it state, it doesn't equate educational guidelines, and make a better connection with the AA and Latino community who voted in favor of prop H8, and get a few big names openly supporting it. I thought Samuel L Jackson's voiced-over commercial talking about racial discrimination discussing Japanese Americans in the 40's, and Latinos not being permitted to marry Caucasians decades back, missed a chance to get to the AA community by not mentioning racism of some sort in Cali's history involving AA's. But, yeah, I think the prop you describe would pass - but I really like the idea of the cases being fought to the Supreme Court and making them rule.

[Independent_Voice]

2. I think it'll go before the U.S. Supreme Court eventually, regardless

But the amendment I described would at least put in the basic spousal rights in place that all couples should be entitled to, while taking the word marriage out of the equation in the short term.

It would, for lack of a better term, "constitutionalize" a bare bones framework for the basic rights that automatically come with a formally defined marriage.

It would also be evidence for when the courts hear these challenges to bans on same-sex marriage.

My other concern is that the Far Right may try to pass another amendment that would also preclude civil unions in California and dissolve the current California domestic partnership registry. If we beat them to the punch and pass an amendment that "constitutionalizes" civil unions, then that will make it a lot harder for them to permanently obliterate ANY AND ALL forms of protections for same-sex couples.

By pointing to a successfully passed State Constitutional Amendment that recognizes the basic rights for committed same-sex couples (even if it isn't defined, in the ideal way, as "marriage"), our side would have a stronger case when appearing before the higher courts to convince them that same-sex marriage should be a human rights issue rather than an issue subject to popular referendum.

So why isn't anyone on our side doing the pragmatic thing and putting something like this on the ballot? Am I missing something here?