Same-sex marriage (SSM) and
|Age in years||% voting Yes on
Prop. 22 (1980)
|% voting Yes on
Prop. 8 (1988)
|18 to 29||58%||45%||-13%|
|30 to 44||56||48||-8|
|45 to 64||63||47||-16|
|65 and over||68||67||-1|
|Those over the age of 65 held firmly to their opinion between the two Propositions: they remained constant with about 2 out of 3 opposed to SSM.|
|Those under the age of 65 altered their position to a major degree, shifting from being about 59% opposed to SSM in 1980 to about 53% in favor -- a change of about 12 percentage points in 8 years!|
A problem facing those opposed to SSM is that only those aged 65 and over favor a ban. Their life expectancy is limited. As this contingent dies the pendulum can be expected to swing towards a majority support for SSM.
Another major effect was due to ideology. Those who identified themselves as liberal, moderate and conservative all became more supportive of SSM in the 8 years between the two Propositions. 22% of liberals, 51% of moderates and 82% of conservatives voted in favor of Prop. 8. These values are all down from those on Prop. 22.
The court has decided on an expedited schedule for the challenge to Prop. 8. They agreed to hear the oral arguments on MAR-05. The court must issue its ruling within 90 days of the oral argument: i.e. 2009-MAY-04.
Equality California noted in their breaking news bulletin that:
"No other initiative has ever successfully changed the California Constitution to take away a right only from a targeted minority group. Proposition 8 passed by a bare majority of 52 percent on [2008-]November 4." 4
Senator Mark Leno is the lead author for SR 7 -- a resolution that would place the Senate on record as agreeing that Prop 8 was an improper revision to the California Constitution because it bypassed the procedure required by that Constitution. Significant changes to the constitution are called "revisions." They require two-thirds vote of the House and two-thirds vote in the Senate, followed by a vote of the public. That did not happen for Prop. 8. Equality California (EQCA) states:
"SR 7 would safeguard the integrity of our constitutionally required checks and balances and help to ensure that minority rights are not stripped away at the ballot box by a simple vote of the majority."
SR 7 was introduced on 2008-DEC-01. 5
HR 5 is a similar resolution written by Assembly Member Tom Ammiano. It was introduced to the House on 2008-DEC-02. 6
On 2009-FEB-16, EQCA, Equality Action NOW, Marriage Equality USA, and California Outreach sponsored a rally at the State Capitol in Sacramento, CA in support of these resolutions.
Equality California also sponsored a Lobby Day on FEB-17 to "... bring together diverse civil rights and faith leaders, community members and allies from across the state and a number of elected officials" in support of SR 7 and HR 5. 7
HR-5 passed the Assembly Judiciary Committee with a vote of 7 to 3. 8 When HR 5 and a companion Senate resolution SR 7 were introduced on 2008-DEC-02, Equality California (EQCA) Executive Director Geoff Kors said:
"Prop 8 eliminates the fundamental right to marry from same-sex couples and allows a slim majority to take away the equal protections of a single minority group, which violates one of the fundamental and founding principles of our Constitution. That type of unprecedented change to the Constitution puts the rights of all Californians at risk, and it?s critical in our system of checks and balances that the Legislature weigh in on such fundamental revisions to the Constitution."
In accepting the Oscar for his portrayal of Harvey Milk in the movie "Milk," Penn stated:
"Finally, for those -- two last finallys -- For those who saw the signs of hatred as our cars drove in tonight, and, I think that it is a good time for those who voted for the ban against gay marriage to sit and reflect and anticipate their great shame and the shame in their grandchildren?s eyes if they continue that way of support. We?ve got to have equal rights for everyone."
The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) announced support of HR 5 and SR 7. In a press release, they stated:
"In a letter to legislative leaders, NAACP national board chair Julian Bond and President and CEO Benjamin Todd Jealous urged passage of House Resolution 5 and Senate Resolution 7 to put the legislature on record calling for invalidation of Prop. 8 as an improper and dangerous alteration of the California Constitution."
" 'The NAACP's mission is to help create a society where all Americans have equal protection and opportunity under the law,' said President Jealous. 'Our Mission Statement calls for the 'equality of rights of all persons.' Prop. 8 strips same-sex couples of a fundamental freedom, as defined by the California State Supreme Court. In so doing, it poses a serious threat to all Americans. Prop. 8 is a discriminatory, unprecedented change to the California Constitution that, if allowed to stand, would undermine the very purpose of a constitution and courts - assuring equal protection and opportunity for all and safeguarding minorities from the tyranny of the majority'. ..."
" 'The NAACP has long opposed any proposal that would alter the federal or state constitutions for the purpose of excluding any groups or individuals from guarantees of equal protection,' said Chairman Bond. 'We urge the legislature to declare that Proposition 8 did not follow the proper protective process and should be overturned as an invalid alteration that vitiated crucial constitutional safeguards and fundamental American values, threatening civil rights and all vulnerable minorities'." 9
SR-7 passed the Senate Judiciary Committee with a 3 to 2 vote. Sen. Dean Florez (D-Fresno) had voted against the marriage bill in the past, but voted in favor of this resolution. EQCA Government Affairs Director Alice Kessler expresses her gratitude for Florez':
"... willingness to stand by us in helping to safeguard the core principle of our state constitution -- equal protections for all." 10
|Amica Curiae briefs promoting marriage equity and opposing Prop. 8|
Amica Curiae briefs opposing marriage equity and supporting Prop. 8
The following information sources were used to prepare and update the above essay. The hyperlinks are not necessarily still active today.
Copyright © 2009 by Ontario Consultants on Religious
Original posting: 2009-JAN-17
Latest update: 2009-MAR-04
Author: B.A. Robinson
This page translator works on Firefox,