Gay Marriage in Danger if Prop. 8 Is Passed
By Yoji Cole
August 27, 2008
Keywords: same-sex marriage, constitutional amendment, Prop. 8, California Marriage Protection Amendment, marriage, lesbian, gay, LGBT, GLBT, diversity
When the California Supreme Court decided in May that the state discriminated against same-sex couples by not legally recognizing their marriages, it appeared the state's highest court had the last word in the debate over same-sex marriage.
But before the ink dried on the decision, opponents of same-sex marriage collected the signatures needed to put a ban on same-sex marriages on the state's November ballot as Prop. 8: The California Marriage Protection Amendment. If it passes, the state constitution would read: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in California." It would not act retroactively, however.
Opponents of same-sex marriage are banking on the amendment because the supreme court's decision overturned a previous statute, Prop. 22, that they thought effectively banned same-sex marriage. "The supreme court's decision to legalize same-sex marriage did not just overturn the will of California voters, it also redefined marriage for the rest of society, without ever asking the people themselves to accept this decision," reads the web site Protect Marriage, which supports Prop. 8.
Protect Marriage says the supreme court's decision could force schools to teach students that same-sex marriage is equivalent to opposite-sex marriage. "The court decision has opened the door to any kind of 'marriage,'" reads Protect Marriage's web site. "This undermines the value of marriage altogether at a time when we should be restoring marriage, not undermining it."
Yes, the battle over Prop. 8 is fierce. Already, Protect Marriage and other supporters of the measure went to court to get its ballot title changed. They feared the title given by the state's Democratic Attorney General and former Gov. Jerry Brown would prejudice voters against it. (Brown is one of California's most liberal elected officials.) The ballot title, as prepared by Brown, is "Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry." Brown changed it after the supreme court's decision reasoning that Prop. 8 eliminated a right the court recognized same-sex couples have. A lower court upheld Brown's title as correct.
"[Prop. 8] is monkeying around with the core of the [state] constitution, which exists in large part to protect minorities," Shannon Price Minter, legal director for the National Center for Lesbian Rights, told The San Francisco Chronicle.
An amendment barring same-sex marriages would be a constitutional disaster for California, because unlike a statute that can be revised by the legislature or overturned by the courts, an amendment is tougher to overturn and would raise the question of whether the constitution protects everyone equally.
"[Prop. 8] would represent a very drastic change in the most basic part of the constitution, which is that all laws have to apply equally to everyone," Minter told The San Francisco Chronicle.
So the fight rages on with each side trying to raise as much money as possible. On Tuesday the sponsor of Prop. 8 announced receipt of their largest contribution, a $1 million donation from the Knights of Columbus, a conservative volunteer organization in the Roman Catholic Church. That was in addition to the $250,000 the Knights gave Prop. 8 supporters in January. Meanwhile, Bruce Bastian, founder of the WordPerfect software company, donated $1 million to help defeat Prop. 8.
Where Do the Voters Stand?
A slim majority of California voters say they'll vote against Prop. 8. The most recent poll, conducted by the Field Poll in July, shows 51 percent of Californians are against the ban, while 42 percent are in favor of it. Some 7 percent are undecided. Moreover, 63 percent of Democrats said they would vote against the ban, while 68 percent of Republicans said they would vote for it.
The same-sex-marriage debate is not unique to California. In the last two decades, the United States has seen a dramatic shift in the legal recognition of same-sex couples. Since 1997, 10 states and the District of Columbia have granted some form of statewide recognition to same-sex couples. Along with California, Massachusetts allows same-sex couples full access to marriage. And nearly a quarter of the U.S. population lives in a state with some form of legal recognition for same-sex couples, reports the Williams Institute.
The Williams Institute also found the following:
- More than 85,000 same-sex couples in the United States have entered into a legal relationship since 1997.
- In the states that provide legal recognition, more than 40 percent of same-sex couples have married, entered a civil union or registered their relationships.
- Female same-sex couples are more likely than male couples to seek legal recognition.
- Approximately two-thirds of legally recognized same-sex couples are female.
- Same-sex couples who have sought legal recognition are generally younger than opposite-sex married couples.
- Same-sex couples are more likely to seek formal recognition when such recognition confers more of the legal rights and benefits of marriage. In states that have offered all or most of such rights, 21 percent of couples have sought legal recognition in the first year it was offered, compared to only 10 percent in states that provide a more limited set of rights.
Before the California Supreme Court made its decision in favor of same-sex marriages, the Williams Institute studied their potential to boost the state's revenue. Spending by California's resident same-sex couples on their weddings, and by out-of-state couples on tourism and their weddings, could boost California's economy by more than $683.6 million over the next three years.
According to the Williams Institute:
- Over the next three years, the direct spending by resident and out-of-state same-sex couples will create and sustain more than 2,178 new jobs in California.
- Over the next three years, the direct spending from same-sex couples on weddings and tourism will generate more than $63.8 million in revenue for state and local governments.
- The weddings from in-state and out-of-state couples will generate approximately $8.8 million in marriage-license fees for California counties.
- Spending on weddings by couples living in California, and tourism and weddings by couples from outside of California, will generate more than $55.1 million in state and local sales-tax revenues and transient occupancy-tax revenues.
"This estimate is conservative in that it does not include increased revenues from many other taxes that are harder to estimate, such as California's motor vehicle fuel tax, earnings taxes, property taxes, excise tax on alcoholic beverages or taxes on indirect spending or earnings," reads the Williams Institute's report.
Click here to read The San Francisco Chronicle's coverage of Prop. 8.
Click here to read the Williams Institute's report "The Impact of Extending Marriage to Same-Sex Couples on the California Budget."
Click here to read the Williams Institute's report "Marriage, Registration and Dissolution by Same-Sex Couples in the U.S."
Readers' Comments
Posted: Tuesday, Oct 07, 2008
Gay Marriage in Danger if Prop. 8 Is Passed
I was married on Sept 10th 2008 in west hollywood to the love of my life. love... bond... forever... that is why prop 8 should be thrown off the ballot. if anyone has ever fallen in love with someone and remembers that moment when they make the decision to spend their lives together you know deep down that you want that title of marriage.
JOSEPH Iori
|
Posted: Sunday, Sep 07, 2008
Gay Marriage in Danger if Prop. 8 Is Passed'
Just a note, but the ProtectMarriage.com site has listed California persons, companies and churches that support Prop 8. Checked a few of them out, and I don't believe several of the businesses even exist. Several of the personal names are listed more than once also. You can bet that if I find a company that supports this thing, they won't be getting my business any time soon. Am not gay, but do not wish to patronize homophobic individuals or companies.
Evangeline Granite
|
Posted: Wednesday, Sep 03, 2008
Gay Marriage in Danger if Prop. 8 Is Passed
Can anyone give a reason why gay marriage should not be allowed that does not include religious beliefs as the underlying factor? I cannot understand how my decision to marry my partner will affect or damage someone else's marriage. Is the desire to ban gay marriage any different than the laws which banned interracial marriage? Yet here we are 40 years later and most people think it is silly that interracial marriage was ever banned. Where will we be in another 40 years? If we are truly trying to protect the sanctity of marriage as those who oppose gay marriage claim, then I support a constitutional ban on divorce. Isn't that a greater threat to the sanctity of marriage than allowing two gay people to marry?
Jennifer Fisher
|
Posted: Thursday, Aug 28, 2008
Gay Marriage in Danger if Prop. 8 Is Passed
You owe your readers another article about this topic- one that gives as much space to the voices of the opponents of Prop 8 as you give to the anti-gay, anti-family supporters of Prop 8. Without that, this article does nothing to contribute to the understanding of diversity celebrated and advanced by your work and the work the others. In fact, it is that very lack of understanding, that very lack of valuing and respecting diversity, that it at the core of this controversy. It is simply another manifestation of cultural supremacy resulting in an attempt to criminalize and suppress diversity in a revival of anti-miscegenation laws that were once used to keep people of color from marrying white people whom they loved and wished to spend their lives with - openly and with the protection of the law for themselves and their children. The entire first half of the article is given to the anti-gay, anti-family SUPPORTERS of Prop 8. (a la Peter La Barbara.) The bulk of the article is given to providing safe data about the factual existence of same-sex couples and families. This does not provide any balance or equity to the opinion, data-deficient arguments presented in the first half of the article from the pro-Prop 8 anti-equality proponents. (And I respect Shannon Minter tremendously - but a lawyer's rather dry reasoning is not exactly the same.) If Peter La Barbara was given an entire article so too should an equally passionate supporter of same-sex equality. If your magazine truly exists to further the understanding of, and contribute to the valuuing of diversity in this culture and society, you will revisit this subject giving equal time to diverse voices. One that is not colored by either your own fears or biases. I write this repectfully as a latina lesbian who values your work and wishes to see your examiation and coverage of this topic rise to the same level as the examination of other difficult topics have. Editor's Note: Luke Visconti, Partner and Cofounder of DiversityInc's, Ask the White Guy article Why Anti-Gay Segment Doesn't Deserve Equal Time
Laura Esquivel
|
Posted: Wednesday, Aug 27, 2008
California's Prop. 8, If Passed, Would Ban Gay Marriage
I am a Lesbian, I have been in partnership with my partner for 24.5 years. We do not really need to be married, but it would be nice to be able to do so in order to participate in each other's benefits provided by the US Government and State Governments and to celebrate our love for one another. My belief is that any law or constitutional change or update for any state that reads "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in xxx" IF these laws are to be voted on, or have been passed, I think that each one of these statements that are protecting the VALUE and SANCITY of marriage should define marriage as a union between "One Man and One Woman ONE TIME." Multiple marriages between hetrosexuals is what really de-values marriage. Thank you.
Bonnie Olson
|
Posted: Wednesday, Aug 27, 2008
California's Prop. 8, If Passed, Would Ban Gay Marriage
I'm skeptical about any proposition which claims to "protect" marriage. I mean, what exactly are they protecting marriage from? The first historical mention of marriage that has been found is in the Codex Hammurabi, the oldest known complete legal code. Throughout history, marriage has taken a multitude of forms. Really, anyone who claims that they're seeking to protect traditional marriage is a few thousand years too late. Even in US history, there's been multiple changes to the definition of marriage, yet it's still managed to survive, just as it will when same-sex marriage is eventually recognized in the US.
Sean Evans
|
Send Your Comments About This Article Now
©DiversityInc. Reproduction in any format is absolutely prohibited.
|
|
 |
|
