State Senate Constitutional Amendment 1 (SCA 1) and Assembly Constitutional Amendment 3 (ACA 3), sponsored by the Orange County-based Traditional Values Coalition (TVC), sought to amend the California Constitution to eliminate domestic partnerships and ban same-sex marriage and civil unions, but on May 10, the bills failed in both the Senate and Assembly judiciary committees by a 6-3 vote in the Assembly and a 5-2 vote in the Senate.

“This is a major defeat for the proponents of this immoral anti-family measure,” Equality California’s communications director, Eddie Gutierrez, told the Gay & Lesbian Times. “This is a classic bait and switch, where anti-gay extremists want to repeal California’s domestic partnership law and prevent the Legislature, the courts and the voters from passing laws to provide any legal rights and protections for gay and lesbian couples.

“The truth is this measure would have done nothing to protect a single California family, and we are happy that the Legislature voted on the side of right, and against extremists,” he said.

Besides barring same-sex marriages, the amendments would have undermined the rights and benefits given to domestic partners by recently-enacted laws including the Domestic Partners Rights and Responsibilities Act. The law went into effect in California on Jan. 1.

Dale Kelley Bankhead, co-chair of San Diegans Against Marriage Discrimination, a local collaboration that was formed to fight the Federal Marriage Amendment, stressed the significance of the defeat of these amendments and their impact on the Domestic Partners Rights and Responsibilities Act.

“As this bill has proposed, to put into the constitution discriminatory language that singles out one group of Californians, in this case the LGBT community, is something that just does not have the support of the people,” Bankhead said.

“Beyond that, to roll back domestic-partnership benefits, as this bill also would have done, is to put thousands of California families in jeopardy while not doing one thing to protect marriage or families, or any other value that the proponents claim to be trying to protect,” she said.

The TVC and other same-sex marriage opponents are planning a statewide ballot-initiative campaign that aims to block same-sex unions.

Ben Lopez, an Anaheim-based legislative analyst and lobbyist with the TVC, said despite the recent failure of these amendments, they plan to roll out this ballot initiative so voters can ultimately decide on the issue of same-sex marriage.

“Since ACA 3 and SCA 1 were clearly rejected by the Legislature, we have no other option but to go directly to the people to try to pass a marriage protection amendment that not only defines marriage for one man and one woman, but also protects the rights, protections and obligations of a marriage and keeps them within the context solely of a one man, one woman union,” Lopez told the Gay & Lesbian Times. “We’ll have to, of course, iron out issues with respect to language, and address all of the logistics with respect to that, and we’ll shoot for a June ’06 or November ’06 ballot.”

Over the next two to three weeks the TVC will strategize in order to develop the specific language of the ballot measure, Lopez said. After ironing out the details they will announce what their intentions are concerning a constitutional amendment.

Bankhead is not surprised about the TVC-sponsored ballot initiative, but is committed to the battle to fight against it.

“Unfortunately they have made it very clear to put something similar on the ballot in 2006, so we are currently working to put together a very broad-based coalition of groups that oppose discrimination in order to defeat that ballot measure,” Bankhead said.

Public opinion has changed over time in favor of same-sex relationships, Bankhead said. She believes the TVC is fighting a losing battle, and that California voters will most likely vote against a ballot measure that would bar same-sex marriage.

Sen. Bill Morrow, R-Oceanside, introduced SCA 1 into the state Senate and Assemblymember Ray Haynes, R-Murrieta, introduced ACA 3 into the Assembly on Dec. 6, the first day of the 2005 legislative session.

The amendments sought to codify into the constitution language from Proposition 22, which in 2000 added a provision to the Family Code providing that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. Proposition 22, also known as the “California Defense of Marriage Act,” was ratified by 61 percent of California voters in March 2000.

San Francisco County Superior Court judge Richard Kramer ruled in March of this year that those laws discriminate against same-sex couples and are therefore unconstitutional. His decision is likely to reach the state Supreme Court next year.

SCA 1 and ACA 3 state: “The rights, responsibilities, benefits, and obligations of a marriage shall only be granted, bestowed, and conferred upon a man and a woman joined in a valid marriage, and may not be conferred upon any other union or partnership.”

Also on Dec. 6, Assemblymember Mark Leno and House Speaker Fabian Nunez introduced the Equality California-sponsored Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act (AB 19). AB 19 would amend Section 300 of the Family Code to read: “Marriage is a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between two persons” rather than between “a man and a woman.”

On April 26, AB 19 passed through the Assembly Judiciary Committee by a 6-3 vote. The bill is currently in the Assembly Appropriations Committee, pending financial review.

“It’s been getting really strong support,” Bankhead said of AB 19. “The speaker supports it and so I think it’s highly likely that it will pass through the Assembly and go over to the Senate. I think there is similarly strong support on the Senate side, so the big question mark is Governor Schwarzenegger.”

If Schwarzenegger signs AB 19, it will become law.