Blog #10 [Make up]

For today we are discussing changes made to state constitutions, and the fallout out from the process. For the life of me, I do not remember a state Amendment or Proposition as inflammatory as Proposition 8. "Prop 8" as it is known was was a California ballot proposition and a state constitutional amendment intended to ban same-sex marriage that passed with over 52% of Californians vote.

Background

After multiple years the time for  argument and debate around the re Marriage Cases was over. On May 15, 2008, the California Supreme Court ruled 4–3 that the laws directed at the LGBTQ+ are "subject to strict scrutiny and same-sex couples' access to marriage is a fundamental right under Article 1, Section 7 of the California Constitution." The court also found that two distinct statutes barring same-sex marriage in California, one enacted in 1977 by the legislature and the other in 2000 by state voters (Prop 22), were unconstitutional. Which in turn allowed for same sex couples to obtain a marriage license, and finally marry as any other couple. 

Events

Opponents to this result quickly began to mobilize their signature drive. In order to qualify for the ballot as a direct initiative, Proposition 8 needed 694,354 valid petition signatures, the equivalent to 8% of the total votes cast for governor in the previous election. The initiative proponents submitted 1,120,801 signatures, and on June 2, 2008, the initiative qualified for the November 2008 ballot. The measures proposed ballot title: "Eliminates Rights of Same-Sex Couples to Marry. Initiative Constitutional Amendment." was not well received by its proponents, that ironically said that the title was too "argumentative and prejudicial." 

The campaign played out extremely tensely, with supporters on both sides not willing to cede any ground. For many on the left was not an issue people could agree to disagree to, as it was about basic human rights. The right, supported by religious teaching also felt very secure in their position. Both sides threw tremendous amounts of money at the campaign. Pro Prop 8 groups that donated heavily to the cause were The Church of Latter Day Saints and conservative national figures like Mitt Romney. 

While the Opposition relied on Human Rights advocates on organizations like the Anti Defamation League, it got significant financial support from many in the Hollywood entertainment community. Further the Republican Governor opposed the Props way of altering the constitution, and ultimately opposed it, along with Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and both Californian Senators.

 Nevertheless the ballot measure passed with 7,001,084 Californians voting for it. In California, a constitutional amendment passed by the electorate takes effect the day after the election, meaning that the state changed overnight.

Fall out

What followed were world wide protests around the sudden change in the law. Vigils were held all over the state, with lager protests being held outside even the US. This was in response to California being considered a sanctuary and destination for many LGBTQ+ people around the world.

However the real fallout was in the legal headache that followed. For the following 4 years the case was declared Unconstitutional by the State Supreme Court, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and others. Eventually the US Supreme Court reviewed the case and sided with findings of the 9th Circuit, which found the proposition to be unconstitutional.

Conclusion

The overall story of this highly controversial bill is one of how fickle our state constitutions are. Because their had been an legislative amendment and proposition 22 on the books, the government of San Francisco kick started this legal challenge by allowing same sex couples to marry. Along each step we see how a failing legislature could have responded to the clear need for a long term plan or legal protections, but that failed. How the Republican Governor vetoed TWO laws that would have protected LGBTQ couples. When the courts finally decided for the legislators, and the people, the people do what they always do, and rightly took it to the ballot. Now the fact of the matter is that while yes the ballot is a great place for deciding policy, In America relying on the ethics of public opinion has proven to be a waste. This can be seen from the history of our nation that states, often democratically choose to ignore the rights of a marginalized people. Weather it be Ruby Ridges in Arkansas or LGBTQA+ people in Los Angeles, the ethics of amendments are nuanced.