Breakdown of Prop. 8 Decision


At 10 a.m. this morning, the California Supreme Court ruled 6 to 1 to uphold Proposition 8. In doing so, they ruled that the 18,000 gay marriages already performed in California would be valid, but that going forward, “marriage” in California will only be between “a man and a woman.” The judges’ decision is about 50,000 words, so in summary, they said they based it on two main issues: 1) whether Proposition 8 was a constitutional amendment or a constitutional revision, and 2) if Proposition 8 would significantly infringe upon gay people’s constitutional rights.

In the first issue, the court referenced the large number of amendments to the California constitution that have been passed since the 1800s and determined, using the requirements for both a revision and amendment, that Proposition 8 was just one of many amendments, not the larger, rarer, revisions. (You can read the entire decision here). The second issue is far more contentious. The judges found that allowing only opposite-sex partners to have the designation of the term “marriage” was not in itself an abrogation of gay citizen’s rights. As they wrote:

“Contrary to petitioners’ assertion, Proposition 8 does not entirely repeal or abrogate the aspect of a same-sex couple’s state constitutional right of privacy and due process that was analyzed in the majority opinion in the Marriage Cases—that is, the constitutional right of same-sex couples to “choose one’s life partner and enter with that person into a committed, officially recognized, and protected family relationship that enjoys all of the constitutionally based incidents of marriage”  (Marriage Cases, supra, 43 Cal.4th at p. 829). 

Essentially, the judges said that because same-sex couples have so many rights in California already, they don’t need the official designation of “marriage.” Protection of gay people’s rights under California law, the judges ruled, “has not generally been repealed or eliminated by Proposition 8.” While the judges did say that they understood same-sex couples’ desire for the term “marriage,” they emphasized that their task was “not to determine whether the provision at issue is wise or sound as a matter of policy or whether we, as individuals, believe it should be a part of the California Constitution.”

The crowds in San Francisco, however, who started gathering at the city’s Civic Center early this morning, were not satisfied with the judges’ opinion that they don’t need the term “marriage” to define their unions. As of about 30 minutes ago, 200+ protesters were blocking traffic in downtown San Francisco. Protesting is all well and good, but what’s next? Most likely, a new ballot measure in 2010 that would overturn Proposition 8. One good thing from the ruling: now that the judges have ruled that Proposition 8 was an amendment, next year’s pro-gay marriage ballot measure would also likely be ruled an amendment and could supplant Proposition 8. For the 90-second YouTube explanation of what’s next, filmed on location in San Francisco, click here.

 

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our newsletters

Subscribe and we'll send Mother Jones straight to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate

Share your feedback: We’re planning to launch a new version of the comments section. Help us test it.