Top of the Ticket

Political commentary from Andrew Malcolm

« Previous Post | Top of the Ticket Home | Next Post »

Proposition 8 stands, despite protests and court challenges

As advocates of same-sex marriage turn to courts, protests and perhaps a future ballot measure to overturn Proposition 8, the Yes-on-8 campaign manager declared the measure to be “as over as Barack Obama’s election.”

Yes-on-8 strategist Frank Schubert said the best way to overturn the measure would be to place an initiative on the ballot that would repeal it. But he doubts that will happen.

“Politically this was the best chance they could have possibly had,” Schubert said.

The all-important ballot title written by Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown cast the measure as one that would revoke a right. The language had been viewed as particularly helpful to people who opposed the measure.

Also, Schubert noted, there was a huge Democratic turnout -- though many Democrats, particularly African Americans and Latinos, don’t support same-sex marriage and voted for Proposition 8. Exit polls showed blacks supported the measure 70%-30%.

One of the closing ads featured Dianne Feinstein. Popular though she is, Schubert said it was odd that foes of same-sex marriage would tap Feinstein to lecture minorities about discrimination.

“It had the feel of a lily-white, liberal campaign,” Schubert said.

He added that the ongoing protests by supporters of same-sex marriage will not help their cause and will have the effect of hardening support for Proposition 8.

Schubert’s comments came as Democratic state legislators, including leaders of the Senate and assembly, filed a brief urging that the California Supreme Court void Prop. 8.

No Republican legislator signed the petition, although Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, denounced the measure in a television appearance over the weekend.

With almost 11 million ballots tallied, Prop. 8 had 52.3% of the vote, with 47.7% against. Although many ballots remain to be counted, the 500,000-vote spread is viewed as insurmountable.

“Proposition 8 seeks to effect a monumental revision of this foundational principle and constitutional structure by allowing a bare majority of voters to eliminate a fundamental right of a constitutionally-protected minority group,’ says the brief, written pro bono by the firm, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher.

“If Proposition 8 takes effect, this Court will no longer be the final arbiter of the rights of minorities.”

-- Dan Morain

Get instant alerts on your cell for each new Ticket item. Register here.

 
Comments () | Archives (22)

The comments to this entry are closed.

guess what , the court did it once and they can do it again, that is their job. "to protect minorities" its in our constitution. they can lol sorry guys

There is still so much bigotry in the country. It is surprising how much bigotry can be attributed to black and latino voters. I honestly had no idea that they could be so incredibly petty after what they have been through. The christian right just exudes hatred and prejudice. In 2008 in a "civilized" country, discrimination flourishes.

The anti-gay marriage movement is doomed. And you can thank people the who sponsored Proposition 8. They played right into the hands of the gay marriage advocates. The Prop 8 proponents fell victim to one of the classic blunders in politics, the most famous of which is, “Never start a land war in Asia”. The 2nd and only slightly less famous is, “Never hold a referendum to keep a group of people down when civil rights is on the line!" HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA.

Government didnt institute marriage. Religion did. Those left of center are hell bent on seperation of church and state in all situations except this one. Interesting.

Schubert's comments don't make sense and seem more like a ruse to demoralize others.

Of course the proposition would pass if it is resubmitted because Barack Obama won't be on the ballot.

Secondly, too say that the protesting hurts the supporter's cause is actually evil. What can be better than to confront churchgoers face to face so they can see a real reality to their choice.

I personally think that Gays are demeaning themselves by wanting to belong to an institution that those who already belong can't get right 50-60% of the time.

http://www.DailyPUMA.com

We should not be ruled by hate.

You people who voted in favor of Prop 8 should be ashamed of yourselves! No true christian would ever vote for this law!

Look in your own heart and deal with your hate, do not put this hate upon others!

Shame shame shame!

The voters have spoken, so now the lawyers are going to court. Get over it, you did not win.

VJ Machiavelli
http://www.vjmachiavelli.blogspot.com

VJ Machiavelli ? HHmm.. Let's look into having Italians shipped back to Italy.

(Leviticus 18:22).

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

There may be no need to overturn Prop. 8. In order to be consistent with the earlier court ruling and not create a contradiction in the state constitution, I think it could be argued that what Prop. 8 does is strip the word marriage from state unions. From now on everyone has a civil union.

This was is OVER. The LOSERS just need to understand that when you pick a fight with God, this is what will happen. Homosexuals will NEVER be able to marry again in California. At least not in THIS century. The voters have spoken! If the homosexuals don't like it, they can move to Canada. Deal with the weather THERE.

LC makes the claim that religion instituted marriage, and claims that those on the left aren't interested in the separation of church and state when it comes to marriage. LC's understanding of the history of marriage is incorrect. Civil marriage predates religious marriage. However, speaking from the left, I'd be happy with the separation of church and state.

The choices then, are these: marriage as a religious rite only with no implications in family and property law (in fact, not much family law left) and then open to all in accordance to the dictates of each religious faith.

Or, marriage as a civil right open to all in accordance to the dictates of equal protection, with our current implications of family and property law, and no longer allowing clergy to act as agents of the state in signing government documents.

A compromise between these two points would be the pre-Prop 8 situation: the State does not discriminate, but each religion may impose its own standards for ceremonies in their house of worship. I'm fine with that. California could allow both straight and gay couples to obtain marriage licenses, couples could marry in a religious ceremony (with the concurrence of that religion), or they could have a civil ceremony (open to all).

As for "VJ Machiavelli," if the voters have spoken and it's over, why did we have to vote down parental notification for a third time? You would think those opposed to abortion would have realized on the second, if not the first time that the voters have spoken.

Hey gay people.....I've got a great idea! Maybe you should kneel down and pray to "THE ONE", you know Lord Barack! Isn't he the one that will heal all the worlds pain, unite the races, bring enlightenment to all? Looks like so far, all he"s brought you is the 70% pro Prop 8 black vote! How come Barry hasn't spoken up and condemned this outcome? Isn't he your savior? You know the Catholics spent more time and money trying to defeat this measure than the Mormons.....oh wait, they vote Democrat... better not touch them. Time to SUCK IT UP !!!

47% of Latinos voted against Prop 8, and 53% voted in favor, so stop making it seem it like a large majority of Latinos supported the measure, when only a SMALL margin did.

The media don't even look at the facts. They see that a large number of blacks supported the measure, so they just lump all minorities together.

The whole purpose of marriage in society is the declaration of a new breeding pair. I've never been anti-gayrights before but I don't see them as a hard done to minority this time, I just see them as being unreasonable.

Gay people can marry-- so long as the person they marry is of the opposite sex. When you go to get a marriage license no one asks you what your sexual orientation is. Gay people do marry persons of the opposite sex-- to have children. Because that is the only way to have children. One man and one woman are required to make a baby whether it is the old fashioned way or in a test tube. Marriage is about children. The law is not discriminatory. Why, when California already has a domestic partnership law which awards same sex couples virtually all of the benefits of marriage except the name, do gays insist on having the name? I have asked this question of others and they won't answer it except to say separate is not equal. But again IMportant distinction--Same sex couples cannot produce children. Period. Such partnerships are not the same or equal to partnerships which can produce children. Someday when people get old-- they will be cared for by someone's children. Same sex couples have not contributed their share to the younger population pool. It's that simple. It is not discrimination to treat people who are situated differently differently. It is not bigotry to accord same sex couples legal recognition in the form of a domestic partnership law instead of a marriage contract. If they want to have a religious ceremony that does not include the words, by the power vested in me by the state of California, they can engage in such marriages without violating any law. So-- again-- I ask-- why do they ask that everyone pretend they are what they are not-- a couple capable of procreation?

Melissa Etheridge has the right idea...withhold state income taxes.

Maybe a travel boycott for California is in order?

http://scootmandubious.blogspot.com/2008/11/melissa-etheridge-rightly-tells.html

"This was is OVER. The LOSERS just need to understand that when you pick a fight with God, this is what will happen. Homosexuals will NEVER be able to marry again in California. At least not in THIS century. The voters have spoken! If the homosexuals don't like it, they can move to Canada. Deal with the weather THERE."

see... I would agree with you on that one if each of the following were to come true: The supreme court was forced to uphold laws made by people. The voters were never allowed to go through the initiative process ever again. There were no lawyers. There were no judges. And we all were governed by Nazis. THEN I would believe you. But since the reality is more bitter to you than your blind pompous fantasy, you probably will just enjoy your 15 minutes. Then when you least expect it, your generation is going to be the old farts while the new generation is going to be the tolerant and acceptable. You will be silenced because people will laugh at you and go "oh he's just having a senior moment" as they forcefeed you applesauce at the nursing home they committed you to. Big fat hateful bigot now, silly old grandpa in the future...

YES on 8. From a secular point of view, gay marriage has an impact on straight marriage rights, which of course is a bedrock traditional institution. There is a good reason why American society is built around the traditional heterosexual home. As a societal stabilizer, it deserves a special place in our national life. Homosexuality is an action, an alternative. But the U.S. is under no obligation to change the traditional legal definition of marriage so everybody can feel good about themselves.

The divorce rate is 50%. Lives, especially children's lives, are being destroyed by a group of people who for some unknown reason are holier than thou. Where does this group of people get off telling another group of people that they can't get married?

No matter the color of their skin, their religious beliefs, their political beliefs, the piercings in their bodies, or their sexual orientation, your fellow man is not your enemy. You have been collectivized and turned against each other by a government and media that wants to control you. Keeping gays from getting married is not going to make your life better. The exultation you feel from having won is fleeting. If you directed all of this energy towards creating a better, less oppressive government, your life would be better.

Be free and let others do the same.

http://ewebsmith.com/gov/republicanism.html

If is amazing that people are so blind to their cause, that reason eludes them. The very people that cast claims of hatred and bigotry against those they oppose, Prop 8 supporters, have proven to be the most bigoted and hateful.

It is typical of the political correctness tactic of the Gay Activist, to try to get decent people to fall prey to feelings of unfairness when they are being just inb their cause. This Heterophobic agenda and hatred for heterosexual based churches and marriage is the latest attempt to undermine people with core biblical beliefs.

Yet, 45% plus of the Prop 8 opponents were heterosexual. It was a weak devious lie to label Prop 8 as the Anti-Gay proposition or a ban on same-sex marriage. It is as if they want you to believe that for 1,000s of years and in every civilized culture same-sex marriage was a right, when clearly legal marriages has always been defined as between One Man and One Woman.

Next we will have the Polygamist protesting that their civil rights have been denied. Wait, the back door to all of this, is that the No on 8 campaign received millions from Polygamist in Utah. These polugamist share the same claim, that their civil rights were being denied and the Prop 8 is a ban on Polygamy marriages.

For all of those who are delusional, the Oregon Supreme court addressed this same matter earlier this year. The Oregon OCurt of Appeals rejected a suit on same-sex marriage much like the current lawsuits-Oregon's Constitution has similar provisions on revisions and equal protection. As a result, the legal challenge to Proposition 8 is a long shot at best.

If these activist groups, gay, polygamy, etc. want to revise the constitution let them propose a ballot initiative, which would be a revision, and require among other things a 2/3 vote.

I agree with John D and to a degree with Will although I would not say that Prop 8 opponents are “heterophobic.” I voted against Proposition 8 because I’m in favor of gay marriage. However, I’m in favor the sacrosanctity of democracy more.

I think there’s a lot of oversimplification, name-calling, and heads clouded by anger on both sides. The real question now should be, do we the people believe that the Supreme Court has the right to overturn an initiative, which cannot be taken as anything other than a direct mandate from the voters? I would say no, since this should not fall under the equal protection clause of the constitution. Proponents of gay marriage will jump at that but hear me out.

It was the California Supreme Court that decided that marriage was a right to be protected. The ABILITY TO marry someone is not PROTECTION. Protection is the right to not be subjected to discrimination based mostly or race or gender. The people, therefore, have decided that gay marriage is to them just not how marriage should work. We don’t allow polygamy, we don’t allow interspecies marriages, we place restrictions on marriage for minors, you can’t marry and inanimate object or plants – these are not rights; they’re just the government not recognizing one’s ABILITY to do something. Rest assured, homosexuals should be, are, and will remain PROTECTED against discrimination because of the lifestyle choices they make, and anyone who violates their personal autonomy should be prosecuted as a hate criminal. I believe that they SHOULD be given the ABILITY to marry, but if the people say no, then the answer must be no.

John D makes a very good point: why is marriage a secular and a religious institution at the same time? Why don’t we just let churches perform marriages as they wish and enumerate all the legalistic ramifications of civil marriage in civil unions for everyone? But that won’t happen any time soon, so while I think gay marriage would be nice, overturning the will of the people is dangerous.

One final thing: can anyone tell me what protesters are protesting against Prop 8 for after it already failed? Seems feeble, even counterproductive to me.


Connect

Recommended on Facebook


Advertisement

In Case You Missed It...

About the Columnist
A veteran foreign and national correspondent, Andrew Malcolm has served on the L.A. Times Editorial Board and was a Pulitzer finalist in 2004. He is the author of 10 nonfiction books and father of four. Read more.
President Obama
Republican Politics
Democratic Politics


Categories


Archives
 



Get Alerts on Your Mobile Phone

Sign me up for the following lists: