Knight Initiative - News Feature, Fall 1999

The No On Knight’s cramped South of Market campaign office, partitioned with temporary corkboard walls and dotted with campaign posters and fliers reading “Pete Knight is watching you,” is the center for one of the most emotional and controversial initiatives on the March 2000 ballot.  Campaign managers have little doubt that the Knight Initiative, which seeks to prevent gay marriages performed in other states from being recognized in California, will fail in notoriously liberal and gay-friendly San Francisco.  But with hundreds of thousands of dollars pouring in from the religious right throughout the state, the opposing Protection of Marriage Committee is currently at a clear advantage. 

“We do not have enough of the voting percentage within the gay community to win,” said Peggy Moore, No On Knight’s field director for the Northern California office. The campaign must reach far beyond its “comfort zone” to gain support from gay and non-gay voters alike to defeat the initiative statewide. “We need to step outside of our community,” Moore said.

Sponsored by right-wing State Senator William “Pete” Knight (R-Palmdale), the initiative simply states “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” Robert Glazier, communications director for the Protection of Marriage Committee, calls the initiative “simple and straightforward.”  In a phone interview from his campaign headquarters in Sacramento, Glazier said the initiative is not directed against gays.  “We simply want to enable Californians to have a voice to ensure that marriage stays between a man and a woman,” he said. 

Gay marriage is not legal in any state.  However, with same sex marriage legislation pending in Vermont and New York, Knight and his supporters want to “close the loop-hole” which would force California to recognize gay marriages performed in those states should legislation pass.  [Section 308 of California’s Family Code reads “A marriage contracted outside this state that would be valid by the laws of the jurisdiction in which the marriage was contracted is valid in this state.”]  “It’s our state,” Glazier said.  “It should be our choice, not some judge’s in another state.”

Moore calls the initiative “fear-based, divisive, intrusive, and unfair.” Historically, pro and anti-gay groups throughout California have had an understanding, Moore said.  “We agree to disagree,” she said.  “The problem comes when you try to make your side a law.”  Not since the 1978 Briggs Initiative, which attempted to prevent gays and lesbians from working in public schools, has the gay community had to fight so fiercely for basic equality rights.  The Briggs Initiative failed, 58%-42%, and No On Knight campaign leaders are confident that the results this time will be the same.

“The polls say that 40% of the people will vote “no” without knowing anything about our campaign,” said Leslie Curtis, statewide field director for No On Knight from her Los Angeles office.  “I have faith in California.  We just need to reach enough people to get our message across.”

So begins No On Knight’s race to reach as many voters as possible before March 7.  The key to defeating the initiative is education, said Moore. “We have to educate, train, and talk about the issues within and without our community, and make sure people are clear about what’s going on,” she said.  Using an extensive website, phone banks, posters, informational pamphlets, and word of mouth, campaign leaders and volunteers are spreading the word about the true nature of the initiative.  “The Knight Initiative will increase the rhetoric of hate and intolerance towards gay and lesbian Californians and their families,” reads one flier.  Another calls the initiative, “mean-spirited,” an attempt to “further a broader, right-wing agenda for our state.”  The campaign emphasizes the risks to homosexual families:  “The Knight Initiative can and will be used to take children away from their parents… keep a person from seeing his or her spouse in the hospital… deny a person access to their partner’s health insurance.”  The pamphlets are directed at those who might not see the underlying ramifications of the initiative.  They read, “The Knight Initiative will hurt families – not protect them.”

According to Moore, the initiative uses deceptively simple wording to convince people that without it, gay marriage would be legalized.  This is not the case. “We are not lobbying for marriage,” Moore said.  Rather, the campaign is lobbying against discrimination.  “They’re tapping into American moral standards, tapping into people’s faith,” Moore said.  Therefore, the campaign’s first priority is to reach faith communities. “We have individuals talking to ministers and other respected individuals within the religious community,” said Moore.  No On Knight hopes to gain support among those who might vote “yes” simply on the grounds that they oppose gay marriage.  If they can educate the faith community to the discriminatory nature of the initiative, they believe they can defeat it. 

While No On Knight actively launches its statewide campaign, the Protection of Marriage Committee has been nearly invisible.  No On Knight’s website lists over one hundred endorsements ranging from elected officials to advocacy groups, from labor organizations to religious organizations.  They have sent out multiple press releases and have capitalized greatly on an LA Times opinion piece written by Senator Knight’s estranged gay son, bashing the initiative as “blind, uncaring” and “uninformed.”  The pro-Knight campaign has responded with brief statements about “family values.”  The Protection of Marriage Committee website includes a brief description of the initiative and a page of quotes opposing gay marriage.  The rest of the site is inaccessible to people who are not registered with the campaign.

Though the pro-Knight campaign may be quiet, they have no lack of support.  Protection of Marriage campaign contributions total over $3.8 million with the majority of funding coming from the Catholic and Mormon churches.  No On Knight has so far received only $850,000.

Despite the great differences in funding, “Californians are tired of these divisive initiatives,” Curtis said.  “People don’t really care what their neighbors are doing in the privacy of their own homes.  They just want to know ‘Does this really increase the quality of life in California?’”

The No On Knight campaign is up against great odds, both financially and spiritually, but organizers are confident that they will get their message across.  “We are not lobbying for marriage,” said Moore.  “We are trying to bring light to Knight.”