2009 to now: Currently active efforts to
overturn Prop. 8 by repeal or a lawsuit.

Sign carried by attendee at a 2010-Summer National Organization for Marriage rally. It cites Leviticus 20:13 which is rendered in the King James Version as: "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." It has variously been interpreted:

• By religious conservatives as calling for capital punishment for all same-sex sexual activity in ancient Israel, and
  
  
• By religious liberals and secularists as ambiguous, either:
  • Calling for the execution of men engaging in same-sex ritual sex with prostitutes in Pagan temples, or
  • Banning two men from engaging in sexual activity in a woman's bed.

There is not too many prostitutes employed in temples today.

Option 1: Attempting to repeal Proposition 8 with another citizen initiative:

• Create a new Proposition to repeal Prop. 8

• What are the chances of a hypothetical state citizen initiative on same-sex marriage (SSM) passing in 2012-NOV?

Option 2: Perry v. Schwarzenegger: Lawsuit to challenge constitutionality of Prop. 8

• 2009: The trial in U.S. District Court:
  
  
  • 2009-MAY to JUL: Launching the lawsuit
    
    
  • Initial reactions; public viewing of the trial
    
    
    • Conflicting worldviews; future trends in public support/opposition to SSM
      
      
  • Comments before the trial: slogans, remarks, webmaster looses cool
    
    
  • The Southern Baptists' Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission's Amicus Curiae
    
    
  • Testimony at the trial
    
    
  • Previous Supreme Court cases vaguely similar to the Prop 8 case
    
    
• 2010-AUG-04: District Court Judge Vaughn Walker's ruling
  
  
  • Part 1: Summary; The case for & against Prop 8; The trial; Question 1 of 3
    
    
  • Part 2: Questions 2 & 3; Findings of fact
    
    
  • Part 3: Conclusions Prop. 8 violates the U.S. Constitution's due process clause
    
    
  • Part 4: Conclusions Prop. 8 violates the U.S. Constitution's equal protection clause
    
    
  • Negative reactions to the court ruling Judicial bias & tyranny; a call to impeach
    
    
    • More negative reactions
      
      
  • Positive reactions to the court ruling
    
    
  • 2011-JUN: Failed attempt by supporters of Prop 8 to appeal Judge Walker's ruling and preserve Prop. 8
    
    
  • The U.S. Constitution's equal protection clause and the legalization of same-sex marriage (SSM).
    
    
• The appeal of Judge Walker's ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit:
  
  
  • Developments after Judge Walker's ruling:
    
    
    • 2010-AUG-04 to AUG-12: Appeal launched; stay installed; stay removed.
      
      
    • 2010-AUG-16 to AUG-30: Injunction; Pacific Justice Institute petition.
      
      
    • 2010-SEP to NOV: Consequences of Judge Walker's ruling. Appeal to Court of Appeals.
      
      
  • Hearings at the Court of Appeals:
    
    
  • 2010-DEC-06 Part 1: 1st. day of hearings before the 9th circuit court of appeals. Terms used.
    
    
  • 2010-DEC-06 Part 2: 1st. day of hearings, cont'd. Statement by religious leaders. Range of court decision.
    
    
  • 2011-FEB to SEP: Legal status of ProtectMarriage.com. The current will of California voters on SSM.
    
    
  • 2011-SEP to NOV: The California Supreme Court determines ProtectMarriage.com's status.
    
    
  • 2012-DEC: U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals holds hearing to determine constitutionality of Prop. 8
    
    
  • 2012-FEB-07: The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals finds Proposition 8 unconstitutional. Reactions
    
    
  • 2012-FEB-07 to now: More reactions to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal ruling. Next steps
    
    
• Polling data on SSM:
  
  
  • Support for, and opposition to, SSM by Californians

Home page > "Hot" topics > Homosexuality > Couples > California > here