WHAT'S ON DECK?
An alliance of me-first groups look like they have proposed a so-called "super-DOMA" amendment to California's constitution. Laws that exclude even the creation of civil unions or domestic partner benefits are particularly oppressive. (From their website):
SEC. 1.1. Only marriage between one man and one woman is valid or recognized in California, whether contracted in this state or elsewhere. A man is an adult male human being who possesses at least one inherited Y chromosome, and a woman is an adult female human being who does not possess an inherited Y chromosome. Neither the Legislature nor any court, government institution, government agency, initiative statute, local government, or government official shall abolish the civil institution of marriage between one man and one woman, or decrease statutory rights, incidents, or employee benefits of marriage shared by one man and one woman, or require private entities to offer or provide rights, incidents, or benefits of marriage to unmarried individuals, or bestow statutory rights, incidents, or employee benefits of marriage on unmarried individuals. Any public act, record, or judicial proceeding, from within this state or another jurisdiction, that violates this section is void and unenforceable.
WHAT'S NEXT?
Anyone what to take a stab at how thorny "decrease statutory rights" might be in practice?
It's not clear (to me) whether these groups have been truthful about the pre-announcement of 1 million signature they have gathered, or whether such announcements are meant to be a chilling affect on the Supreme Court's current deliberations. Signature filing is due by April 28th, about six months before the election.
The sister-group's website suggests that they aren't delusional about the money they will need to make it happen:
The cost of gathering sufficient signatures is estimated to be roughly $1.6 million. Once the amendment is placed on the ballot, the campaign to urge voters to vote "yes" will likely exceed $10 million.
ORGANIZING FOR A FIGHT
I cannot second guess what is going on in California.
Who is coordinating the strategic response to the potential backlash, if any, from the Court's upcoming ruling?
As for the Constitutional Amendment, would it have made sense to get a different Amendment (or even a Repeal 22) question on the ballot, to split the vote or to muddy the waters enough to stall the thrust of these "super" discriminatory initiatives?
