The fight against same sex marriage is heating up, with opponents now trying to do away with domestic partnerships in the guise of "protecting marriage." Here's the text from a leading California ballot initiative which would amend the state's constitution:

SEC. 1.1. a) Only marriage between one man and one woman is valid or recognized in California, whether contracted in this state or elsewhere.

b) 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 bestow statutory rights or incidents of marriage on unmarried persons, or require private entities to offer or provide rights or incidents of marriage to unmarried persons. Any public act, record, or judicial proceeding, from within this state or another jurisdiction, that violates this section is void and unenforceable. (Emphasis added to inflame the proponents.)

Here's the San Mateo Journal:

The attorney general summarizes measures before they are added to the ballot, but one of the amendment’s official sponsors said Lockyer was “inaccurate and prejudicial” and vowed to challenge it in court.

Lockyer’s changed the title from “The Voters’ Right to Protect Marriage Act” to “Marriage. Elimination of Domestic Partnership Rights.” A spokesman for the attorney general’s office said Lockyer did not intend to take a position but to “tell voters the truth.”

Lockyer is accused of misleading voters by telling them too much about what the measure would eliminate:

While noting that the amendment would "provide that only marriage between one man and one woman is valid or recognized in California," it goes on to state that the measure "voids and restricts registered domestic partner rights and obligations" in areas ranging from inheritance and adoption to insurance benefits and hospital visitation."

"The attorney general's responsibility is to accurately describe what the measure does," said Nathan Barankin, a spokesman for Lockyer. "It's not up to us to wage the political campaign the proponents or opponents want to wage, just to tell the voters the truth."

The amendment's official sponsors - Randy Thomasson of the Campaign for Children and Families, former Assemblyman Larry Bowler and Sacramento activist Ed Hernandez - can ask a court to invalidate or amend the attorney general's proposed summary if they think it doesn't accurately reflect their intent. Representatives of their group, VoteMarriageYes.com, did not return telephone calls seeking comment.

The stripped-down language could prove a liability for the amendment's proponents as they seek to qualify it for the ballot and win voter approval.

Although California voters approved a ballot initiative five years ago limiting marriage to a man and a woman, since then the state Legislature has granted gay and elderly couples who register as domestic partners nearly all the rights and responsibilities of married spouses. Polls have shown most voters support extending the rights of marriage, if not the institution itself, to same-sex couples.

"California voters, even though they are relatively liberal, probably do not support gay marriage," said Elizabeth Garrett, a University of Southern California law professor. "But if it's very clear to voters it is not just a gay marriage amendment than it is less likely to pass. Opponents will capitalize on that and it gives them a chance to characterize this as an extreme initiative out of the California mainstream."

Anyway, this initiative is a perfect example of what's known as a backlash, and I think the gay activists (and Gavin Newsom) mostly brought it on themselves. Certainly, there's nothing fair about it; California has gotten along quite well with domestic partnerships. They're voluntary, and no one is obligated to enter into them. Making them illegal violates the individual right to enter into private contracts, and will open a can of worms I hope will come back to haunt those who are promoting this odious amendment.

(My thoughts on prohibiting "incidents of marriage" here, here, and here.)

Meanwhile, there's yet another competing ballot initiative which limits itself to a single sentence (to be added to the California Constitution):

Sec. 7.5. A marriage between a man and a woman is the only legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this state.

But is the phrase "legal union" easy to understand? Googling the phrase gave me over 28,000 hits. What if you're in an "illegal union", or an unconstitutional common law marriage?

Vagueness often masquerades as simplicity.