06/02/2008
CA Secretary of State: Gay Marriage Ban Qualifies for Ballot
Just breaking, via the AP:
"California Secretary of State Debra Bowen says a random check of signatures submitted by the measure's sponsors showed that they had gathered enough for it to be put to voters. The measure would amend the state constitution to define marriage as a union 'between a man and a woman.' If it is approved by a majority of voters on Nov. 4, it would overturn the recent California Supreme Court ruling that legalized same-sex marriage in the state."
California is set to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples on June 17.
By November, how many valid marriages would be threatened by such a measure and will the voters stand for it?
Posted 8:56 PM EST by Andy Towle in California, Gay Marriage, News | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Here's hoping that by November as voters look around the state and see gay marriages haven't caused the state to implode or fall into the ocean. Once they see it isn't threatening anyone and that there own marriage is still intact that it will not be such a big deal.
Here's hoping a good marriage equity campaign and an apathetic voter turn out, see the defeat of this measure.
Posted by: kujhawker | Jun 2, 2008 9:09:36 PM
That's a shame. Don't these people ever give up? I doubt this is the issue on voter's minds this year.
Posted by: Cub | Jun 2, 2008 9:17:08 PM
I got slaughtered on this board for saying the fight wasn't over yet when the CA state Supreme Court decision first came out. I rest my case byotches.
Posted by: dezboy | Jun 2, 2008 9:25:31 PM
Boo! >_<;;
Posted by: Aman Chaudhary | Jun 2, 2008 9:26:58 PM
Damn!!!! So the fight continues....
Posted by: Dakota | Jun 2, 2008 9:49:51 PM
Even though I expected as much, this still really pisses me off. I'm talking this up to as many of my friends/family/co-workers as I can - how unbelievably hateful and narrow minded some people can be. I think the question isn't going to be so much as who is going to make the ads in support of equal rights, but who is going to be on record for supporting a amendment to the Californian constitution to discriminate against a group of people. How sick is that? Fasten your seatbelts, it's going to be a bumpy night!
Posted by: Mike | Jun 2, 2008 9:55:41 PM
I think the majority of people from USA are bigots and they will vote against SSM, like they did in 2000.
Posted by: Caritina | Jun 2, 2008 9:59:50 PM
Even if it passes, it may not be valid. Some lawyers have pointed out that the proposed initiative is not an amendment to the California Constitution, but a revision (i.e a partial repeal of the equal protection clause and rights to privacy in so far as marriage is concerned). Revisions of the California Constitution cannot be done by initiative. They can only be done by a constitutional convention or a proposal submitted to the voters for ratification by the legislature.
Posted by: Craig | Jun 2, 2008 10:20:20 PM
Craig, Those attorneys have a very strong case that should be heard. Perhaps now a lawsuit shall be filed against the Sec of State office, to disallow the vote on the basis of what you stated. This is what I see the next step being.
Posted by: Vi Agara | Jun 2, 2008 10:27:07 PM
No surprises here! When the majority of the population of the most liberal state in the union can't pass gay marriage it looks bleak for middle America!
Posted by: RB | Jun 2, 2008 10:52:04 PM
I've got a real love/hate thing goin' on with California's proposition form of legislation. This is one of those times when I hate it. A lot.
Posted by: Todd | Jun 2, 2008 10:54:07 PM
Great, that's what we need, a vote. Nothing like the majority trampling on the rights of the minority. It's going to be many years before equality my friends. It will come, and maybe we will see it, but it will be many years. Checkout my blog for an essay on how straight people are "special" and are seeking the "special" rights they always accuse gays of wanting.
Posted by: Mercutio | Jun 2, 2008 11:33:29 PM
"When the majority of the population of the most liberal state in the union can't pass gay marriage it looks bleak for middle America!"
California is not the most liberal state in the U.S. Vermont, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts are much more socially liberal than CA.
Posted by: Javier | Jun 2, 2008 11:53:41 PM
California is not just San Fransisco and West Hollywood. The inland population is the bottleneck to equality. The Democratic Party has a comfortable lead just like Massachusetts, but direct democracy is the way the minority in our state gets their grievances heard.
No matter what, we should all donate what we can afford until election day to defeat the new ballot initiative in November.
Posted by: Matt from California | Jun 2, 2008 11:56:53 PM
While some of the latest polls show that the majority of Californians now support marriage equality, this doesn't reflect those who actually vote. Younger people are totally for equal marriage rights, but they don't vote. It's the older residents who vote and they oppose marriage equality. It's important that gay people in CA talk to their older, straight friends. They must come to see this as an equal rights struggle the same way that inter-racial marriage was.
The LA Times had a great piece about talking to old people on this topic: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-stein30-2008may30,0,7603308.column
Posted by: gr8guyca | Jun 3, 2008 12:09:13 AM
The state of CA in its entirety is not all that liberal.
I wonder... what would it eventually take for marriage equality to be decided by the Supreme Court? How was it that Loving vs. VA (interracial marriage) made it to the Supreme Court? In the end, I wonder if this is going to be our only hope.
Posted by: k | Jun 3, 2008 12:48:02 AM
Sad.
Posted by: Jake | Jun 3, 2008 1:07:58 AM
A strong coalition of many of the gay rights organizations has come together to support a single new organization specifically organized to fight this proposition: 'Equality for All'. http://www.equalityforall.com.
This organization will need all of our support to turn out the vote against this amendment initiative, and to influence our broader spheres of influence about the importance of voting No on the amendment.
Posted by: zach | Jun 3, 2008 1:20:12 AM
Also, do not disparage Debra Bowen for following the law and authorizing the amendment. It was her job to do it, and unlike the Secretary of State in Florida in 2000, we should be proud that she follows the law even when it is contrary to her own opinion. She is a good friend of the gay community.
Posted by: zach | Jun 3, 2008 1:23:53 AM
Uh, "direct democracy" is not good for most minorities simply because they do not have the numbers to fight on their own. The are dependent on a large number of members of the majority voting for the minority cause.
This kind of system is perfect for crushing the rights of minority populations as seen in Michigan where referendums were used to kill any formally recognized gay unions and Affirmative Action.
The country is structured as republican form of democracy to prevent this kind of tyrrany of the majority. Reprensentative government adds a layer of abstraction to prevent mob mentality from overcoming justice.
It's important to realize that the history of the United States is filled with events of mob justice whether in the form of lynchings or jury rulings based on bigotry. Lynchings were a standard form of "justice" taking black in the U.S. through the late 1960s, though at the point mostly in the South. However, there are cases of lynchings in California.
Today, the mob mentality can be seen less in direct violent action but through attempts to legally oppress minorities, whether through codified second class citizenship or judicial outcomes where jurors allow their prejudices to decide cases. For gays, this reality is clear in the frenzied rush in 2004 through today to pass anti-gay marriage laws or in court cases where gay panic defenses are used to justify either battery or death.
The 1967 Supreme Court decision in favor of the Lovings to remove statutory barriers to interracial marriage and other Civil Rights decrees were not popular at the time of their rulings. Had there been some kind of national referendum on interracial, what would the result have been?
This is why it is critical that the Democrats win the 2008 presidential contest. Undoubtedly, a Republican president like McCain would appoint very conservative jurists like Anton Scalia, which would kill any hope of getting a positive U.S. Supreme Court ruling favorable to the GLBT community.
(P.S. While I think marriage rights are great; some kind of universal health care would be great, too. Being able to marry is awesome but being able to maintain good health is critical. Given the rates of poverty and economic struggle amongst many Gay Americans, contrary to the mythical demographics shown to advertisers, not all gays have wads of cash, a BMW, etc. Many live paycheck to paycheck. Access to decent health care for individuals and their children is a matter of life and death that many can't afford.
Most of the "gay press" is focused on the monied class of gays and not the working class majority. Look at the ridiculous Out 100 list that focused mostly on the fashion/film/sports entertainment industry. Great, but what about the rest of the GLBT community?)
Posted by: noah | Jun 3, 2008 1:45:14 AM
Loving v. Virginia reached the Supreme Court on a direct appeal from Virginia's Supreme Court of Appeals, a process that is very rare nowadays. After the Judiciary Act of 1925, Congress gave the Court almost exclusive control over its docket and Congress further expanded this discretion in the Judiciary Act of 1988. Except in cases where Congress has decreed the Court shall here the appeal of a case involving X or cases falling under the Court's original jurisdiction (defined in the Constitution), it is next to impossible to appeal a case directly as Loving was.
To get a case before the Supreme Court, one usually files with the Court a petition for a writ of certiorari. The petition outlines reasons why the Court should hear a particular case. The Court, in accordance with customs the Court has created but never formalized, reviews the petition. By custom (with special exceptions), if four of the nine justices vote to hear the case, the petition is approved and a writ of certiorari is issued to the lower court( the one that last rendered a judgment in the case) to inform the Supreme Court of its judgment so it may be reviewed by the Supreme Court.
The Court can only approve petitions for writs of certiorari if the case involves a matter within the Court's jurisdiction (generally has to involve a Federal issue or right). Generally the Court will only approve those petitions which also involve a case of great national importance or where there are conflicting rulings on a question of law in similar cases in different jurisdictions.
After Massachusetts' ruling, opponents of marriage equality tried to appeal to the Supreme Court on the theory that Massachusetts' judgment deprived them of a Federal right. They asserted the clause in the Constitution requiring the states to have a republican form of government was being usurped by the Supreme Judicial Court since Bay Staters were being denied the right to vote on marriage and the legislature didn't approve a law "redefining" marriage. They got laughed out of court. Likewise, since California's ruling was based on the California Constitution, its ruling cannot be reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court.
What it would take to get a marriage equality case to the Supreme Court would be for a couple that lost a marriage case in some state that denies marriage to same sex couple to assert in a petition for a write of certiorari to the Supreme Court that their Federal right to marry, as it exists in the Due Process Clause and as recognized by the Supreme Court in not less than three marriage specific cases (Loving v Virginia, Zablocki v Redhail and Turner v Safley), is being denied by their state. If four justices think the case is worthy, or ripe, for judgment, the Court can accept and hear the case.
To date, none of the losing couples in the cases from Vermont, New Jersey, New York, Washington, Oregon, etc have filed such a petition to ask the Court for review for fear of how it will rule, however, the Court can only rule on the case from a Federal perspective. Even if the Court rules against it, it cannot bar the states from judging their own constitutions differently as Massachusetts and now California have done. The fear is that a negative ruling at the Supreme Court however will discourage states from deviating from the Supreme Court in our favor.
Ultimately the Court will have to decide such a case, in my opinion. I suspect that Vermont, New Jersey and possibly Connecticut will within 2-4 years "upgrade" their civil unions to marriage and New York will perhaps pass a marriage equality bill once Joe Bruno is out as NY Senate majority leader (the only impediment to the bill being considered in the NY lege). If that happens, over one quarter of Americans would live in a state with marriage equality and the number of cases involving marriage couples in states that don't will begin to ballon to the point that the Court will at the very least have to decide whether recognition is required under Full, Faith and Credit if not whether the holdout states have to accept marriage equality a la Loving.
Posted by: Craig | Jun 3, 2008 1:48:59 AM
I agree with you Noah, for the most part on the direct initiative process. There are cases where it is a good thing, forcing the government to consider matters that elected officials won't ever and/or would never consider. However, when the process is used as a weapon against minorities, it crosses a sacred line. To quote a famous Pledge of Allegiance case from the 1940's in a majority opinion penned by Justice Jackson: "The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."
The principle of this and from subsequent cases would lead me to strike down as unconstitutional any initiative that seeks to in any way repeal or carve out exceptions to such fundamental rights or the equal protection of the law. I know it is somewhat dangerous to assert Natural Law, but under our system of government, if there is any Natural Law, any right that precedes the Constitution, any provision of our Constitution which is unrepealable, any provision that is undoubtably a recognition of a right and not an asserted creation of a right, it is the Equal Protection Clause. Without it, our form of government devolves into surreal version of Orwell's Animal Farm where all people are equal, but some people are more equal than others. Without it, slavery, oppression of women, religious minorities, ethnic minorities, racial minorities, political minorities, etc becomes possible by majoritarian tyranny.
Posted by: Craig | Jun 3, 2008 2:11:15 AM
No surprise. There also may not be any gay marriages before November since the court has been asked to stay their ruling until after the election. They have until mid-June to decide. It's customary for them grant such a stay.
San Diego gay voters, please remember Mayor Sanders in today's tough mayoral election. He was there for YOU when it mattered, let's be there for HIM.
Posted by: queendru | Jun 3, 2008 4:01:29 AM
The hispanic vote will be the critical factor.
Posted by: Jimbo | Jun 3, 2008 6:43:47 AM
The hispanic vote will be the critical factor.
Posted by: Jimbo | Jun 3, 2008 6:44:43 AM