More Failures For Heterosexist Supremacists

As I reported last week, one group of heterosexist supremacists failed to gather enough signatures to put an initiative on the June 2006 primary ballot. In today's Los Angeles Times, the other shoe drops: Andrew Pugno, ProtectMarriage.com's general counsel is quoted saying "I think it is very unlikely there will be any [anti-gay] measure on the ballot this coming year." Randy Thomasson, of VoteYesMarriage.com, announced that "it would not circulate petitions until it raises enough money to guarantee a successful drive by paid signature gatherers." He said that his group may not have a ballot measure until 2008. Happily, the good guys (Equality Califiornia) is not taking them at their word and is rapidly attempting to set up a field operation in every county in the state. "We are moving full steam ahead preparing for what we think will be a major battle in November," said executive director Geoffrey Kors. I agree with Equality California, that we should be prepared. It only takes one wingnut millionaire with more money than sense to donate $1-2 million dollars to pay the signature gatherers to initiate a $10-20 million ballot battle in November 2006. Happily, we do know that at least there will not be an anti-gay proposition on the June 2006 primary ballot. Instead, we just have to decide who do we want to be the next Governor of California: State Treasurer Phil Angelides or State Comptroller Steve Westly (both of whom have said they would have signed the Civil Marriage and Religious Freedom Act of 2005 which Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed in September 2005).

Another tidbit from today's Times article was the estimate of 2007 for a final ruling from the California Supreme Court on the constitutionality of the current heterosexuals-only marriage law. I also must applaud the Times for pointing out that the ballot measures proposed by the heterosexist supremacists Thomasson and Pugno and their ilk would not only amend the state constitution to further ban gay marriage, but also would have voided statewide comprehensive domestic partnership benefits and responsibilities which just went into effect on January 1, 2005.