Local News

SAN FRANCISCO (CBS 5 / AP / BCN) ― With protesters taking to the streets Thursday, gay rights leaders conceded that California's Proposition 8 same-sex marriage ban had passed.

The narrowly-approved measure overrides a California Supreme Court ruling last May that gave gay couples the right to wed.

News outlets, including The Associated Press, had projected its passage following Tuesday's vote, but because there were still absentee and other ballots being counted, gay marriage supporters had said they weren't ready to concede.

But by Thursday afternoon, the opponents of Prop. 8 said they didn't think there were enough outstanding votes on their side to defeat the measure.

"I think it's a disappointing moment for the nation as a whole. I do think that as history judges this, there will be recognition that this was a mistake," said "No on Prop 8" executive committee member Kate Kendell in a teleconference with reporters.

The latest tally from the Secretary of State's office showed the initiative winning with 52.5 percent of the vote.

Lawyers for the "No on Prop 8" campaign already have filed lawsuits seeking to invalidate the vote in the California Supreme Court and opponents were holding rallies throughout the state.

Police in Los Angeles detained two people after about 2,000 ban opponents protested at a Mormon church, which was targeted because the denomination supported the measure.

The night before, hundreds of protesters held a candlelight vigil on the steps of San Francisco's City Hall.

As the protesters marched, complex questions emerged about whether attempts to overturn the prohibition can succeed and whether the estimated 18,000 same-sex unions already performed in the state would be invalidated.

Proposition 8 campaign manager Frank Schubert said campaign officials would not seek to nullify the marriages already performed and will leave any legal challenges to others.

Gay-marriage proponents on Wednesday filed three court challenges, which Schubert called "a desperate last act." The lawsuits raise a rare legal argument: that the ballot measure was actually a dramatic revision of the California Constitution rather than a simple amendment. A constitutional revision must first pass the state Legislature before going to the voters.

"Where do you draw the line between 'revision' and 'an amendment' when those are words in conversation we would use interchangeably?" asked Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California, Irvine law school. "It's a highly technical legal question in a highly charged political atmosphere."

Andrew Pugno, attorney for the coalition of religious and social conservative groups that sponsored the amendment, said they would fight the lawsuits. "It is time that the opponents of traditional marriage respect the voters' decision," he said.

The high court has not said when it will act. State officials said the ban on gay marriage took effect the morning after the election.

"We don't consider it a 'Hail Mary' at all," No on Prop 8's Kendell said of the litigation. "You simply can't do something like this...take away a fundamental right at the ballot."

With many gay newlyweds worried about what the amendment does to their vows, California Attorney General Jerry Brown said he believes those marriages are still valid. But he is also preparing to defend that position in court.

"I wish I could be comforted by Attorney General Brown's statement that it has no retroactivity," said Loyola Law School professor Bill Araiza, who married his same-sex partner Oct. 29. "But it's in flux and I just don't know."

The amendment does not explicitly say whether it applies to those already married. Legal experts said unless there is explicit language, laws are not normally applied retroactively.

"Otherwise a Pandora's Box of chaos is opened," said Stanford University law school professor Jane Schacter. Still, Schacter cautioned that the question of retroactivity "is not a slam dunk."

One scenario for a challenge, experts said, is that an employer could deny medical benefits to an employee's same-sex spouse. The worker could then sue the employer, giving rise to a case that could determine the validity of the 18,000 marriages.

A 2003 California law already gives gays registered as domestic partners nearly all the state rights and responsibilities of married couples when it comes to such things as taxes, estate planning and medical decisions. That law is still in effect.

(© CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. The Associated Press and Bay City News contributed to this report.)