Written by California State Senator William J. "Pete" Knight, Proposition 22 is referred to as the "Protection of Marriage Initiative" by supporters and as the "Limit on Marriage Initiative" by opponents. The proposition is only 14 words long: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

Claiming that the initiative would strip them of their rights and cause division among the citizens of the state, gay activists have strongly opposed Proposition 22 in what is popularly known as the "No on Knight" campaign.

The Queer Resource Center (QRC) of the Claremont Colleges has supported the "No on Knight" effort by encouraging voter registration among students and hosting forums on gay and lesbian rights. Approximately 200 students have registered to vote through efforts made by the QRC.

Opponents to Proposition 22 are planning to paint Walker Wall on Friday afternoon and hold a "March for Marriage" on Saturday. The QRC will hold a forum regarding same-sex marriage on Thursday, February 17, and Harvey Mudd will host "Love Makes a Family," a photography exhibit highlighting families with lesbian, bisexual, gay, and/or transgender members, from February 12 through 26.

Jesse Evans CMC ’03 of the QRC said a strong concern is that Proposition 22 will open the door for legislators to take away domestic partnership benefits that homosexual couples currently enjoy in California. These include hospital visitation rights, inheritance rights and the right for state employees to obtain health insurance for domestic partners.

"[Initiatives similar to] Proposition 22 have been used in other states to get rid of domestic partnership laws," Evans said. "It’s such a backwards move, and it goes against what I always thought California stood for, which is tolerance and equality for everybody."

According to a recent poll conducted by the "No on Knight" campaign, 46% of polled voters are for the initiative, 47% would vote against it and 6% are undecided.

Evans said that while a vote in favor of the initiative would make it impossible for homosexuals to be married in California even if they were married in another state, a vote against it would not legalize homosexual marriage.

"Nowhere in the proposition does it say that if we vote against it, gay marriage will be created," Evans said. "Ironically, this isn’t about marriage. It comes down to the government coming into people’s personal lives."

However, those in favor of Proposition 22 cite the importance of tradition and California’s rights as an individual state as reasons to vote in favor of the proposition.

"Once a marriage has been defined as anything we want as long as we love each other, it opens the door," Robert Dunn CMC ’00, a bible study leader for the InterVarsity Christian Fellowship, said. "I don’t know where we stop. I think to broaden the definition of marriage to include man-man or woman-woman is to scrap the entire meaning of marriage."

In response to those who feel the government has no right to infringe upon marriage as a personal right, Dunn points out that all marriages are approved of by the state, whether or not they receive sanction from a religion.

"Marriage seems like something that is fully in the state sphere and fully in the religious sphere," Dunn said. "I do think it’s the state’s role to uphold the sanctity of marriage as an institution."

While Dunn does not believe the state should make legislation barring homosexual couples from choosing to live together, he does believe a line needs to be drawn on marriage in order to uphold state sovereignty.

"If one state allows [homosexual marriages], then you could go to that state and get it," Dunn said. "And that state essentially forces its law on the rest of the country."

Currently, there is no legalized homosexual marriage anywhere in the United States. Hawaii briefly legalized homosexual marriage, but repealed the legalization within a year in response to a voter initiative.

In the event that a state does legalize homosexual marriage, homosexual couples would be legally capable of claiming the rights of married couples anywhere in the United States, including rights regarding taxes, adoption and divorce. Proposition 22 would bar these rights in California.

"There are no gay marriages anywhere in the country anyway," Evans said. "Why not wait for that to happen before arguing [Proposition 22]?"

Thomas Haley ’02, also a member of the InterVarsity Christian Fellowship, has a different take on the situation. While he does not support the actions of the QRC, he opposes Proposition 22 because he believes that the individual has a right to choose.

"People have a choice concerning who they want to live with, have sex with, raise kids with," Haley said. "I’m not saying that they should, but they do. The government will recognize that when Prop 22 is shut down."