Proposition 8 results
The American Constitution does not deal with the issuance of marriage licenses. Legal marriage is a state CREATED institution. Legal marriage doesn’t EXIST except as state law sets forth.
No couple becomes legally married until after they and their witnesses and the officiating party, who does not have to be a member of the clergy, affix their signatures to the document. This proposition is about denying equal access to government services to all citizens. What this “banning” means is that government will be constrained from allowing same sex couples to apply for and to receive a marriage license like all other couples can do.
It does not change the fact that there are same sex couples. It does not change the variety found in the composition of families. Remove all the emotional, spurious and specious propaganda from the event and what we see is discrimination, plain and simple.
This proposition exposes the hypocrisy involved in denying same sex citizens equal access to obtaining a marriage license by re-creating them as a class of second class citizens in a state within a country that claims “equality” is a national cornerstone.
It will remain as a day in American history that points to the millions of dollars spent by right wing religious zealots on the creation and distribution of specious, spurious, and fallacious propaganda aimed at stirring up fear and loathing, rather than unity and love.
There will be court challenges, and, in fact, one is already underway. The petition filed with the California Supreme Court is available online and the ACLU’s press release explaining the challenge is available online too. The relevant text is found online as well.
It comes down to this: The provision of the California constitution which describes the process by which it may be altered uses both the word “amendment” and the word “revision”. Although the two words are usually paired, the provision which allows the electors to amend the constitution by initiative ONLY refers to amendment–it’s the only subsection of the “Amendment and Revision” statute which does not also use the word “revision”.
“Prop. 8, if it passes, conflicts with the equal protection clause (in the California Constitution),” Allred said at an afternoon news conference in her Los Angeles office on Wednesday. “We will argue to the court that Prop. 8 is a disguised revision to the constitution which cannot be imposed by the ordinary amendment process, which only requires a simple majority. We believe that then the court must hold that California may not issue marriage licenses to non-gay couples because if it does, it would be violating the equal protection clause as straight couple would have more rights, by being allowed to marry, than gay couples.”
Lambda Legal, the National Center for Lesbian Rights, and the ACLU also filed a lawsuit directly with the high court challenging Prop. 8. They, too, allege that the measure is invalid because it failed to follow the proper process required to make far-reaching changes to the California Constitution — such as denying a fundamental right to a minority and prohibiting the courts from remedying abuses of that minority’s rights. Source