Proposition Eight

                                                                      Proposition Eight



Introduction



In November 2008, the voters of California went to the ballot to make a determination on a pending issue in the public domain. The issue was whether same sex marriage should be illegalized in the state of California. Proposition eight, as it came to be known, was a ballot question as to whether same sex marriages were going to be illegalized or not. The amendment had proposed a reversal of a previous one that legalized gay marriages in 2000 (Dolan). The amendment represented section 7.5 that was to be added to the provision on the declaration of rights (Bowen). Nevertheless, the proposition did not interfere with domestic relationships that were in effect before the amendment was proposed (Sayre, Bode, Dhavan, Dave and Chirag, pg 12-15). The proposition had obvious supporters and opponents and drew much of the public debate among liberals, conservatives and the two main parties spent various resources to make the most out of the campaign in terms of public choice determination and influences. The proponents of proposition eight included anti-Gay groups and individuals who support the traditional marriage and a family as a basic unit of society such as high level political players like John McCain, Mitt Romney, and Newt Gingrich. Liberals, Gays, ardent Constitutionalists, and Gay couples rejected the proposition terming it a violation of the principle of equality before the Constitution (George, pg 34-44; Sayre, Bode, Dhavan, Dave and Chirag, pg 12-15). The most important aspect of the campaign process for the proposition eight in the run up to the November 2008 elections was the fact that both sides gave overwhelming financial support to their campaigns and promoted their activities in various platforms. Analysts have argued that apart from the Presidential elections of 2008, no other campaign raised the overwhelming resources that both sides raised for their respective campaigns (Mike).

                  In the elections the voters supported the amendment by more votes, and the amendment came into effect the following day (Bowen). The victorious traditional marriage proponents argued that the restoration of traditional marriage was in tandem with the law of nature, the will of the people, and the will of God (Dolan). However, the opponents argued that the law was at variance with the principles of Constitutionalism and as a result they challenged the results in the California Supreme Court. Moreover, the ballot verdict led to protests across California and the entire Nation. Nevertheless, the proposition still managed to overturn the Supreme Court ruling that had legalized Gay marriages in 2000.

         The purpose of this paper is to look at the debate surrounding proposition 8 with the opponents and the proponents, the key players in the debate, the pre-election legal challenges, the campaign funding for the two sides and the results and response to the people’s verdict. While the contents of the proposal re not the focus of the paper, my attempt shall be on the events surrounding the proposition eight and the political context of the referendum process.

Pre-Election Legal Challenges

         The major pre-election challenges that the Proposition eight faced included the overall petition to strike it off the ballot and the specific proposition that challenged the wording to the proposition. The two petitions were filed by both sides. The opponents of the proposition sought to have the proposition eight removed as a referendum question, arguing that the proposition violated the Principles of Equality before the Constitution. In their presentation, the petitioners who were also opponents of the proposition eight argued that the proposition eight was a Constitutional revision hence could only be brought to the people through a constitutional convention or the legislature. Nevertheless, the petitioners were overruled on the basis of court procedures. The procedures determined that it is improper for any court to adjudicate over a pre-election petition hence making it impossible for the court to hear the case. As a result of the legal hurdles, the court, on July 16th 2008, the court rejected the petition.

         The proponents of the measure also filed a petition challenging the wording and the title of the summary. They argued against the Attorney General’s wording saying that the title and the wording would prejudice voters against the proposition eight thus making it more unacceptable to the people to accept. The petitioners also accused the California Attorney General of inflammatory language that only served to bribe the emotional attention of the voters. Nevertheless, lawyers of the other side argued that the proposition eight aimed exactly at changing the Constitution to disallow same sex marriages in California and hence the wording only reflected the intent of the proposition eight (Dolan; Garrison). In the end, the court also rejected the petition. In the end, the petition failures led to the opening of the political contests that shaped the Constitutional debate especially in California.

         The campaign funding that led to the political battle for the hearts and minds of the voters of California begun in earnest. The finances were raised both locally and externally to promote the values of the debate and the point of view of both sides.

Campaign Funding

         The opponents of proposition eight were ardent supporters of the liberal view that the Constitution provides uniformity that needed to be protected by the Constitution at all times (Mike). They argued for the protection of fundamental rights and various freedoms that people enjoyed as was guaranteed by the Constitution. This is because in their opinion, the Gay community would feel alienated from the American society and the fruits of the American democracy for which they were part. The campaigns therefore drew on the liberal foundations of the American society and as a result led to the major resources coming from the American population that did not support the surprising the rights of individuals. They focused on the need to reject as false the view that our differences should be the primary reasons why we stay separate (Garrison). This became the reality of the campaigns for the opponents of the proposition eight. The campaign raised 44.1 million dollars.

The proponents of the measure got support from people who valued traditions of society and sought to raise the funds and mobilize the grassroots to put their points across. To begin with, churches supported the measure by encouraging and even placing targets for their congregation to raise resources for the financing of the campaigns to have the measure approved by the electorate (George, pg 34-39; Mike). Secondly, the proponents also got support from external funding sources which included foreign clergy and conservative regimes and governments that were of the view that the American precedence and example was at variance with the laws of nature, especially Middle Eastern countries. The funding was majorly directed at educating the public on the need to protect and safeguard the principles of family as the basic tenets of the development and progress of any society (Garrison). The proponents focused mainly on the protection of the institution of marriage. This enabled them to raise over $39 million for the campaigns for the proposition eight.

The Opponents and Proponents

         The basic of political competition in any democratic society includes the presence of a formidable competing alliance between two opposing sides. The Proposition eight had the markings of an epic political struggle between Democrats and Republicans, Liberals and Conservatives, Constitutionalists and religious fundamentalists, as well as the right versus the left. The Proposition eight had strong personalities in both the proposition and the opposition.

         The opponents of the proposition were high ranking members of the Democratic leadership. They included political figures such as Speaker Nancy Pelosi, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, Lieutenant Governor, State Controller John Chiang, Attorney General Jerry Brown, forty two members of the state assembly, mayors of San Diego, San Francisco, and Los Angeles, half of the state senators, and U.S. Senators Barack Obama (current President), Joseph Biden (current Vice President), Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer (Sayre, Bode and Shah; Mike; Garrison). Other players included organization such as the “Equality for All”, the League of Women Voters, and the local chapters of NAACP (Bowen; Garrison). The opponents argued that the freedom to marry was a fundamental right that ought to be guaranteed to everyone irrespective of who they wished to marry (Garrison). They also argued that divisive and discriminative efforts, unnecessary constitutional amendments, and infringements on rights of persons should be avoided. These organizations and personalities joined the chorus of disapproval which included religious organizations, non-partisan corporations, and editorial boards of most major newspapers in California.

         The proponents of the constitution included most ordinary families in California as well as the high ranking member of the Republican Party. They included traditional marriage rights activists, the Clergy, and Conservative Republican politicians including former House of Representatives Speaker, Newt Gingrich, former Governor Mitt Romney, and Senator John McCain. The conservatives coalesced around the Presidential campaigns of Senator John McCain and sought to influence the conservative divide in Democrat state (Mike). While the proponents had some impact on the outcome, the historical circumstances behind the legalization of the same sex marriage in 2000 had more to do with it (Bowen). The conservative voices sought to strengthen the values of the family that had been subjected to the liberal tyranny since the Supreme Court had permitted same sex marriage in the year 2000.

Results and Response

         The November referendum was a victory for the proponents of the proposition eight. 7 million voters approved the measure while 6.4 million voted against the measure. The opponents of the measure were slow to respond. However, when they finally responded, the head of the campaign said that the vote was deeply disappointing as it neglected equal treatment under the law. The hardest hit areas included Westwood Los Angeles and Sacramento’s Gay and Lesbian Center (Sayre, Bode, Dhavan, Dave and Chirag, pg 12-15). Additionally, counties that rejected the measure held protests and even engineered court cases that would still challenge the proposition eight as a law in California as several lawsuits were filed at the state Supreme Court and the Federal District Court. In 2009, the decision of the voters was upheld thus retaining same sex marriage. However, the Supreme Court upheld the marriages that were performed before the passage of the measure. There were other responses that included lawsuits filed against the pro 8 campaigners for violating campaign disclosure laws. The most challenging one was in the Perry v. Schwarzenegger case at the Federal District Court. The case was overturned on account of lack of state interest that would interfere with according Gays the right to marry each other (Sayre, Bode, Dhavan, Dave and Chirag, pg 12-15).

         The proponents on the other hand proclaimed victory and thanked voters for restoring the traditional values of marriage in the society. The counties that approved the measure went ahead and implemented the laws the following day.

Conclusion

         The proposition eight, coming at a time when the most significant products of the civil rights movement could be witnessed in the Presidential debate, was a significantly strong case for the equal rights advocates to make (Mike). However, they met a stronger challenge that edged on the values of the American family as the basic unit of organization.



Works Cited

Bowen, Debra. “California Secretary of State Debra Bowen”. 2013. 11 April 2013 <http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/ballot-measures/referenda.htm>.

Dolan, Maura. “Gay rights groups lose a round”. 17 July 2008. 11 April 2013 <http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jul/17/local/me-gaymarriage17>.

Garrison, Jessica. “Gay marriage foes challenge ballot wording”. 28 July 2008. 11 April 2013 <http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2008/07/28/20080728gaymarriagecalif0728-ON.html?nclick_check=1>.

George , Chauncey. "Why Marriage? The history shaping today's debate over gay equality," . New York: Basic Books, 2004.

Mike, Swift. ”Opponents of gay marriage ban ride wave of donations”. 24 October 2008. 11 April 2013 <http://www.mercurynews.com/localnewsheadlines/ci_10806730?nclick_check=1&forced=true>.

Sayre, Ben. Bode, Leticia. Dhavan, Shah. Dave, Wilcox, Chirag, Shah, "Agenda Setting in a Digital Age: Tracking Attention to California Proposition 8 in Social Media, Online News and Conventional News." Policy & Internet 2.2 (2010): 11.