The text of proposition 8 is as follows:
This initiative measure is submitted to the people in accordance with the provisions of Article II, Section 8, of the California Constitution. This initiative measure expressly amends the California Constitution by adding a section thereto; therefore, new provisions proposed to be added are printed in italic type to indicate that they are new.
SECTION 1. Title This measure shall be known and may be cited as the “California Marriage Protection Act.”
SECTION 2. Section 7.5 is added to Article I of the California Constitution, to read:
SEC. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.
A measure to once again ban gay marriage in California led Tuesday, throwing into doubt the unions of an estimated 18,000 same-sex couples who wed during the last 4 1/2 months.
As the measure, the most divisive and emotionally fraught on the state ballot this year, took a lead in early returns, supporters gathered at a hotel ballroom in Sacramento and cheered.
“We caused Californians to rethink this issue,” Proposition 8 strategist Jeff Flint said.
Early in the campaign, he noted, polls showed the measure trailing by 17 points.
As of this time of posting the numbers are Yes 51.9% No 48.1%, with about 91% of precincts reporting. Read the whole article.
Kendall, see Marc Andrus comment on prop 8. This man, like so many of the fashionable-inductees, gives me the heebie-jeebies. Larry
some good news!
Another piece of legislation, from the state of Arkansas.
[blockquote] LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (AP) – Voters have approved a measure banning unmarried Arkansas couples who are living together from serving as adoptive or foster parents, imposing a ban that the Legislature balked at adopting.
More than 56% of voters supported the ban, said by its proponents to be aimed primarily at keeping gays from becoming foster or adoptive parents. [/blockquote]
I posted this over at StandFirm also:
With 95% of the precincts, the Yes side has 52% of the votes and the No side 48%. No would need to make up over 400,000 votes over that last 5% (or in other words, the last 5% of the vote would have to be radically different then what has come in so far). The solidly No counties of the Bay Area have already been counted. If you look at the outstanding counties, there are three strong yes counties still coming in and one very moderately no county (based on the votes that have been counted). According to last week’s Field Poll, early voters were leaning “Yesâ€. Our local paper, the Sacramento Bee, states that Proposition 8 is “close to victory†and I have heard and read journalists and pundits (at least one of which clearly wanted Proposition 8 to lose) state clearly that they believed Proposition 8 had passed.
So I am thinking that the media, while largely unofficially conceding that Proposition 8 has passed, are not calling it yet because technically it could still fail. I doubt that it is any “bias†on the media’s part in their not calling it, because they haven’t called Proposition 4 either (parental notification on abortion) which the media hoped would lose and which appears to have lost. One of the journalists was explaining how they “call†races and he said that Proposition 8 would be very difficult to “call†until all the votes are in, or there was a decisive percentage difference, due to the fact that California is very divided regionally with the Bay Area strongly No, the Central area strongly Yes, and LA being the toss-up.
I did watch an interview with the “No on Proposition 8†side late last night after the Yes side had claimed victory. The No spokesman said basically that they would litigate whatever they could against Proposition 8 and that they would “never give up†and promised future propositions, etc. This fight isn’t over.
When do California election officials count absentee ballots: election night or the day after?
How long before the lawsuits begin again?
There seems to be a difference of opinion. The L.A. Times (see link above) declares that it has passed 52% to 48% with 95% of precincts reporting. The Orange County Register, with the same statistics, reports that it’s “too close to call.” http://totalbuzz.freedomblogging.com/2008/11/05/still-too-close-to-call/7506/
The L.A. Times is more noted for distorting news that it doesn’t like than the Register.
Reports today are 52-48, 400k vote difference with 100% in.
The San Francisco Chronicle’s site is now showing the measure as having passed:
http://www.sfgate.com/election/races/2008/11/04/CA/c/i_proposition/i_1_8_same_sex_marriage_ban/g_ballot_issue/c/california.shtml
It makes sense if you do the math. The remaining votes would have to be 88% No to change the outcome, and even San Francisco didn’t vote that strongly No.
I think it is fascinating that social conservative issues (this, and the abortion measure that nearly passed) did so much better than the McCain-Palin ticket. Might Californians be receptive to Sarah Palin’s agenda?
RazorbackPadre, am I correct in assuming that the Arkansas initiative was just a ban on same-sex couples from adopting and not a ban on a homosexual individual wishing to adopt? So, unmarried couples whether straight or homosexual may not adopt as a couple.
#9 Probably, it’s the absentee ballots that haven’t been counted yet, and they’re likely to be conservative Yes votes. Absentees are probably the most committed to vote, since they had to register, apply for an absentee ballot, and actually mail it in or walk it to a polling place. They also must be hand-counted, I think.
#11, that’s not the way it is in California now. Anyone can register as a permanent vote-by-mail voter. Then you automatically get ballots mailed to you in every election.
The OC Register now says that Prop 8 has passed, although 15 minutes ago, they published this:
http://totalbuzz.freedomblogging.com/2008/11/05/prop-8-outcome-still-appears-in-doubt/7545/
[blockquote]The Los Angeles Times has called the race for Prop. 8, reporting that it’s passed, but opponents of the gay marriage ban say they won’t concede because the margin is too close and there’s still up to “4 million†ballots to count.
The No on Prop. 8 camp held a hasty conference call with reporters this morning where they said they wouldn’t concede until there’s an official word from Secretary of State Debra Bowen. Kate Kendell, executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, said the campaign believes late arriving “provisional†ballots, including her own, come from younger, progressive voters who form the backbone of the No on 8 movement
She said “at least†3 million votes remain to be counted, although I haven’t been able to confirm that with the Secretary of State’s office quite yet. She end the quick call by saying “We’ll know more tomorrow.†So this could go on for some time folks. Stay tuned..[/blockquote]
On the status of the 18,000 same-sex marriages- perhaps the 13th amendment to the US Constitution will provide an analogous case. Prior to the 13th amendment slavery(defining the legal relationship between two persons) was legal, but after enactment of the amendment even those prior legal relationships were no longer enforceable. So, even though the same-sex marriages were legal when entered into they now are legally unenforceable. The so-called “marriages” will revert back to legally recognized civil unions.
#12, I think you’re right. They’ve been coming to me automatically for a couple of years now. However, you still have to remember to get it in the mail before the deadly, which was last Thursday–or you can drop it at in any ballot box on election day. I almost didn’t get it in the mail on time. Also, you have to find a stamp to put on it, too. Voting by absentee ballot isn’t free.
Remember how worried everyone was that not enough money had been raised for yard signs supporting the Proposition? One axiom my political friends often use is this: “signs don’t vote.” I am also wondering if some of the activism on the part of TEC bishops in California was because they thought it might stand a good chance of being outlawed anyway.
LongGone (#9) writes:
“I think it is fascinating that social conservative issues (this, and the abortion measure that nearly passed) did so much better than the McCain-Palin ticket. Might Californians be receptive to Sarah Palin’s agenda?”
There was a really interesting article on this a few weeks ago at Slate. Apparently the big surge of pro Prop 8 votes did not occur in spite of, but was directly correlated with, the drive to get votes out for Obama. Why? How? California’s liberals and Democrats, in their eagerness to get “people of color” to vote in this election, were right that they would tend to vote for Obama; but what the party minds forgot is that poor blacks and latinos had not “gotten the memo” on how to vote on OTHER issues — they had not been to Reeducation Camp and so voted AGAINST gay marriage in keeping with their religious and cultural values.
I was surprised to hear that Califronia’s constitution could be altered with a bare majority of 50.1%. (The actual vote appears to have been 52%.) My own view as a traditionalist is that state and federal constitutions should be enduring and difficult to alter. Because California’s is so easy to change at a whim, T19 readers should expect that Prop 8 will be reversed in 8 or 12 years. On the whole mass opinion favoring gay relationships and even gay marriage has moved fairly steadily towards approval, year by year.
It is weird that 50.1% of voters can amend the state constitution, but given the unfortunate fact that 4 judges can do so, it’s a necessary counterbalance.
Jon is right – the black community, especially the older voters, voted heavily in favor of Prop 8 based on the figures I’ve seen (sorry, I don’t have a link).
I don’t have a state by state breakdown, but I think you’ll find that it’s not unusual to have a simple majority requirement for amendment of state constitutions. How constitutional amendments get on the ballot does vary considerably from state to state.
I don’t think same-sex marriage is inevitable in Calif. or elsewhere. People are extrapolating the youth vote without taking into account that youths get older and their opinions change along with babies to raise. Also, the proponents of same-sex marriage will be reluctant to suffer a third popular defeat. Wiser heads in the same-sex marriage movement will want to rest the issue for the time being given the fact the civil unions in Calif. give same-sex couples all the social welfare benefits received by married couples.
#10. No co-habitating persons may adopt or foster. Foster/adoptive parents must be single living single or else married in a valid marriage.
This is just a quick midday update on the status here. Just about all of the local sources are now calling this passed base on the raw count from last night. However, the absentee ballots are just starting to be factored into the mix. Depending on the county this could be a 1 to 2 day time window for them to be included. The other uncertainty factor is the provisional ballots, which will take even longer. The No on 8 folks have announced this morning that they will not concede anything, as a part of this process. One person interviewed actually used the “every vote must count†line. The bottom line is that final numbers may not come out for a week or more.
As for the status on the ground well, there is confusion. Per the last news reports I can find no one in Sacramento is giving any guidance on this to the counties. For a local this is not surprising, given what the folks in Sacramento owe and to whom. Therefore each county is reportedly acting on their own, based on the advice they are receiving. One news channel is reporting that a challenge lawsuit will be filed this afternoon in Los Angeles. However, this has not been confirmed by the other sources, so that this for what it is worth.
All I can say is nothing is fully settled as of this morning.
I think we can assume the gay movement will immediately file another lawsuit to invalidate the results.
Ok, I missed something and I have to update the update. There is a report being carried by two papers (the Chron and the SJ Mercury News) that there was a direct challenge filed with the Supreme Court this morning. From the Mercury News “The legal challenge maintains that Proposition 8 is invalid and takes away a “fundamental right” from “just one group — lesbian and gay Californians.” The petition argues that the state constitution cannot be amended if it violates other constitutional rights.â€. Sorry I missed this one earlier.
Just checking Google, I must be psychic:
http://www.mercurynews.com/elections/ci_10906871
“Civil rights groups challenge Prop 8 in court”
Asking the California Supreme Court to rule the constitutional amendment unconstitutional.
Gee, what a surprise!
http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_10905867
“SF City Attorney to file legal challenge to Prop 8”
To Jim, Stu, etc….
In principle it’s not crazy for someone to challenge the constiutionality of an approved amendment to a constitution. It makes perfect sense — if the person is claiming that the new addition/change contradicts something much deeper already in the constitution.
For example, if anti-semitism rose to such an extent that an amendment to the U.S. Constitution was achieved that said that all Jews have to wear a star, it could be legitimately challenged in court as contradicting much deeper ideas explicitly articulated throughout the rest of the document.
So in principle this is not a crazy thing to do. Naturally one might argue that the specific argument being made is flawed (i.e. that marriage is a “right” all groups should have). But if so it is flawed on particular grounds, not on the general ground that it’s crazy to claim that one section of the constitution should be declared void because it is in contradiction with much deeper principles articulated elsewhere in it.
Please remember: one can register as a ‘domestic partner’ with the State of California; this covers those who choose to engage in homosexual behaviors.
Hey, there’s a rumor that the Mormons backed Prop 8 in Calif because it specifically does NOT limit marriage to ‘one man and one woman’, it uses the more ambiguous ‘a man and a woman’, thus making room for polygamy! Mmmmm, seems like a logical reading to me! Anyone heard this one? Comments?
Alright! Bring on the Big Love! Thanks LC.
Officially the mainline Mormon church is now sharply opposed to polygamy. So I am guessing that they would have lent their support even if the language of Prop 8 had implictly forbidden it. Still, though, maybe you are right. Maybe they are secretly hankering to get back to the days of Joseph Smith and his many wives.
I still don’t see how same-sex marriage can be permitted and polygamy banned. If you have one you must permit the other. The legal arguments are identical.
The LA Times now reports that a legal challenge has been filed. For those interested, you can link here go down to page 8 of this document to read about how Proposition 8 is likely to be challenged. I seriously doubt this challenge will be successful. It would be seen as a provocative declaration of war on the people, and remember that SC judges in California are subject to recall.
The more interesting question will be the legal status of the same-sex marriages which were conducted over the last several months. I personally think that based on the text of the new constitutional amendment, same-sex marriages are neither valid nor recognized, no matter where nor when they were entered into. In other words, while the same-sex marriages can’t be undone, they should not be recognized in the state of California. So same-sex couples “married” in California would have those marriages recognized in Connecticut, Massachusetts and New York, they would no longer be recognized here. But that is just my opinion. You can be sure that this will also be litigated.
“I still don’t see how same-sex marriage can be permitted and polygamy banned. If you have one you must permit the other. The legal arguments are identical.”
Absolutely correct. If marriage is not nature-(i.e. biology-) based, it can be nothing other than a consensual relationship of adults; and if three or more adults agree to a polygamous relationship, then the state has no interest in interfering. It constantly surprises me that few people can see this simple point.
Jon (post #18), this was brought up to me by a colleague of mine who opposes same-sex marriage, but is convinced it will pass eventually. I think that we absolutely will face another initiative at some point, but I think Proposition 8 was a significant victory. Consider:
1) The people have now spoken twice on this issue, and I don’t think it will be looked on favorably for same-sex marriage proponents to try this again anytime soon.
2) The Field poll done before the election, showed that a much higher percentage of Californians believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman, then actually voted yes on 8. The reason being that a significant number of people did not want to vote to “take away” a “constitutional right”.
3) I have read that the higher turnout was expected to have helped out the No on 8 side. I think that we are unlikely to have such a high-turnout election again in a very long time.
4) If other states successfully amend their consitution to ban same-sex marriages, it might be the gay rights movement will realize shift that push to the backburner for now, and instead concentrate on the civil union thing.
All in all, I do think we are seeing the gradual transformation of American society from one based on Christian-Judeo values to one based on no values at all, and same-sex marriage will be only one issue in this overall transition.
“All in all, I do think we are seeing the gradual transformation of American society from one based on Christian-Judeo values to one based on no values at all, and same-sex marriage will be only one issue in this overall transition.”
Not to ‘no values at all’ but to secular personalism (aka the will to power). But the election of Obama can only a staging post to that destination. The failure of Christians to hold on to schools and higher education is the fundamental reason for this – what the Gramscians called ‘the long march through the institutions’ of culture – schools, ‘entertainment’, the press are all heavily in the secular-liberal pocket.
“Please remember: one can register as a ‘domestic partner’ with the State of California; this covers those who choose to engage in homosexual behaviors. ” But, separate but equal has not done too well with the Courts (whether you support it or not). And if the current case fails in court there is that messy problem of the already married same gender couples and what this does to their rights. Ultimately, this may well end up in the Supreme Court (by then with a few Obama appointments) and be decided for the entire country and not just California (which may have been the whole point in the first place). All those messy unintended consequences. The people can speak all they want, but if the Court decides a minorities rights have been violated, it can and has imposed it’s will. When would we have ever gotten civil rights for African Americans if the Court we had waited for the “people” to speak.
As I have pointed out in the past, no one is being denied the right to get married. This “right to marry” line is just one huge non-sequitor. Marriage (even on societies which allow polygamy) has always been between man and woman. What Prop 8 did is simply codify, in the State Constitution, the traditional definition of marriage as being between “a man and a woman.” Homosexual men can marry any unmarried woman who will consent to marry her. Likewise, homosexual women can marry in unmarried man who will consent to marry her.
Now, if the homosexual activists had gone the legislative route, rather than the judicial one, this definition would probably not be enshrined in the Constitution. Of course, that would require patience and getting the majority of representatives and senators to vote their way. That is much more difficult that getting 4 or 5 judges to vote your way.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Thanks JamesW. Very thoughtful.
I’ll say something which I realize goes violently against the received opinion at T19 (that opinion being that it is vitally important for traditional Christians to stop gay civil marriage at all costs). And that is that I am mildly surprised by how exercised my traditionalist brothers get over this. (I can call them brothers because I am myself a traditional Christian, deeply opposed to all of TEC’s innovations of the last 5-6 years, including but not only those confined to homosexuality).
I can understand traditional Anglicans getting very passionate about attempts INSIDE THE CHURCH to alter church teaching, marriage liturgies, and so on. I have nothing but solid sympathy for them here.
But one of the great things about being an American is the very sharp separation we have between church and state. The government (state or federal) has no right and will never have the right to alter church teaching, require or coerce clerics to perform or not to perform a ceremony. The 1st Amendment is simply too strong in our legal history.
My own view on this issue is very much like that of C.S. Lewis.
What was true in Britain in 1952 is even truer of America in 2008. Most Americans are not Christians — not in the full blooded doctrinal sense that Lewis and T19 readers would recognize. They just aren’t. They are not Jews or Muslims either. Most are not.
So my feeling is that we need to be very clear and very territorial about CHRISTIAN marriage, but we need in the civil realm we need to have a different attitude: where the laws are there to promote citizens of all stripes living peaceably with one another and protecting them from enemies abroad. Laws against murder, theft, arson, etc. — yes. Laws banning gay marriage — it’s unclear to me why.
It’s important to remember that the greatest threats to the Christian family are families not going to church and casual sex and the specter of divorce, all three of which straight couples in America have achieved spectacularly well in the last 50 years with no help from gay people. None of the Prop 8 boosters are talking about passing laws to alter any of these — and yet they do infinitely more damage to family life than a tiny number of “married” gay couples.
Again, I can’t stress enough that I am sharply opposed to the innovations of TEC of the last 5 years. I am not arguing covertly for “the other side.” I am just suggesting that it seems like there are better things to worry about and to spend our money on than fighting what strikes me as a losing battle in a purely civil realm.
Jon, oh my: following your logic, we should also ignore the other weird manifestations of sexual desire present in our population: polygamy, threesomes, foursomes, us-two-plus-dear-Rover, etc., etc.
The ‘gay marriages’ are a result of folks who are narcissistically focused on their own sexual desires, and their own demand for ego satisfaction (What I want to DO is OK!) plus the mix-up between categories of ‘being’ (I AM a homosexual) and behavior (I have strong urges to engage in homosexual behavior). Add a large dollop of ‘rights’ language (e.g., ‘it is my RIGHT to be ‘married’ to whomever I choose’) and ipso facto, we reach the current mess. And it IS a mess.
‘here the laws are there to promote citizens of all stripes living peaceably with one another and protecting them from enemies abroad.’ Look: no one is lining these folks up and burning them! In many places, they will receive job preference over ‘straight’ white people! By granting those who wish to engage in homosexual behaviors, and wish to publicly proclaim that they are doing so, society compounds the problemm. The California laws on domestic partnership meets all the requirements that a civil society can/should supply. “Separate but not equal” does not apply because they already can recieve all the ‘benefits’ of ‘marriage’ IF they choose to do so.
This demand for ‘marriage’ status is simply giving in to the large narcissistic streak which underlies so much of our society, whatever one’s sexual urgings. It won’t be long, my friends, before the threesomes are lining up to have their ‘RIGHTS’ recognized! After all, they aren’t ‘hurting’ anyone, right? And they have this URGE, so they MUST be allowed to indulge it, and call it ‘marriage’, right? After all, to do otherwise would be to DISCRIMINATE! HORRORS!!
#40…. hey LC. You write:
I think you are directing that to a different person (DeaconMark, #37). I didn’t mention anything about S and E.
Since you raise it though, you may be misunderstanding what DC was talking about. The doctrine historically was not called “separate but unequal” but “separate but equal.” It was used to justify Jim Crow style segregation. The idea was that it is ok for us to have a certain thing just for white folks, as long as we can show that black folks also have their own thing which is just as equally good. (Drinking fountains, restrooms, etc.) It is precisely your claim that gay people have their own thing (civil unions) in California that gives equally good benefits that marks it as a “separate but equal” style of argument. DM is suggesting to you that this kind of argumentation has had a poor reception in American courts in the last 60 years — therefore the existence of civil unions may not have much weight in future court debates.
Thank you Jon. Yes, that is what i was suggesting. Not my personal feelings nor my personal arguments about what should or should not be done, but just what the Courts might do in the next decade given what they have done in the last 40 years.
You’re right, it is ‘separate but equal’….and I stand by the rest of post #40, especially the lines about the narcissism of our age.
Little Cabbage — I thought you were going to be our President!!!
Interesting to read someone else who argues that the state cannot enforce ssm because it violates the first amendment, something I have been saying for some time. It is simply true, and obviously so. It follows that if TEC wants to permit ssm, they may certainly do so. No one else need recognize it. But they state can’t interfere any more than it can enforce “the right to marry” for ssm’s. Now, it TEC chooses to follow this path, then we can conclude that it is no longer a Christian church, but most of us have concluded that already.
I am at a loss to explain the notion that marriage is a right. Why is it a right? (As LJ said, if it is a right for two, then it is a right for a half dozen, and the Supremes will not open this can of worms. Of couse, as Obama fills the court with leftwingers, this view may change.)
Nor is this issue like the civil rights movements. Would “the people” at last have accepted the rights of blacks without the courts? I think they would indeed; that the change was already under way, and when MLKing spoke, the alteration was clearly taking place. In any case, the civil rights movement for blacks did not step outside the bounds by granting special rights because blacks are fundamentally no different than the rest of us. This patently is not rue of homosexuals, who are by the most obvious evidence radically abnormal. The courts do not hesitate to refuse marriage to the severely retarded, after all, and this is the class in which homosexuals fall, if we view the bell curve as determinative.
In any case, the Cal prop. will have this slow invisible effect, that it will help focus a clearer vision of what marriage is SUPPOSED to be for heterosexuals, and we desperately need this clarification.
What the case may be otherwise, homosexuals have in Cal received an enormous setback, for most people will rightly say, “If ssm’s don’t get a majority in the land of the nuts and the fruits, where SHOULD it get a majority?” Cal’s reputation is too well earned
(pax t19’s californians). And I still think that the mayor of San Fran standing aghast at the enormity of legalizing prostitution in the city was such a patent piece of hypocrisy, that the saner residents may have decided that you have make a stop. As Oscar Wilde said (quoted here somewhere) “Morality like art has to draw a line somewhere. Larry
Incidentally, did you read the Bishop’s comments? I asked Kendall to post them. Larry