Attorney General Bill Lockyer wrote a summary of a proposed measure to allow supporters to start gathering signatures to put it on the June 2006 ballot. In it, he said the amendment would allow only marriages between a man and a woman and restrict domestic partner rights in inheritance, adoption, child custody, hospital visitation and other matters.

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.”

Amendment co-sponsor Voteyesmarriage.com said the summary “is replete with errors, omissions and negative, prejudicial campaigning,” according to a statement released Monday.

San Mateo County opponents of the marriage amendment agreed with Lockyer’s assessment and said it would erode rights for same-sex couples, especially for child custody and child support.

“I think that people should not be misled or fooled,” said gay rights advocate Marina Gatto. “Its purpose is to take away rights for the families,” she said.

Gatto, 17, said she hoped San Mateo County voters would reject the amendment because it also strips rights of children of same-sex couples. Gatto and her mother Ramona Gatto of San Carlos have advocated gay rights and same-sex marriage in the county.

California voters approved an initiative in 2000 limiting marriage to a man and a woman, but since then, the state Legislature has allowed couples to register as domestic partners and receive the rights and responsibilities of heterosexual couples.

Lockyer indicated in his summary that the amendment could limit hospital visitation for same-sex marriage partners, but Voteyesmarriage.com said it would remain a right. The amendment would limit marriage to union between a man and a woman, and should not focus on rights it would eliminate, according to Voteyesmarriage.com.

State Assemblyman Larry Bowler, R-Elk Grove, accused Lockyer of inserting liberal bias into his assessment.

“We think a judge will be much fairer than Lockyer,” Bowler said in a statement. “Because protecting marriage for a man and a woman deserves respect, not ridicule.”

Wire services contributed to this report.

Stephen Baxter can be reached by e-mail at stephen@smdailyjournal.com or by phone: (650) 344-5200 ext. 109. What do you think of this story? Send a letter to the editor: letters@smdailyjournal.com.