2009 to 2013-JUN: Efforts to overturn Prop. 8
by repeal or lawsuit. Lawsuit wins! Polling data.

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 male prostitutes in Pagan temples, or
  • Banning two men from engaging in sexual activity in a woman's bed.

There are not too many male prostitutes employed in North American temples today .

Challenge the constitutionality of Prop. 8 directly via the federal courts. This was the path taken.

Four individuals, a lesbian couple and a gay couple, launched a lawsuit in federal District Court to obtain the right to marry; they won. Normally, the State of California would have immediately appealed that decision to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. However, the Governor and Attorney General firmly believed that Prop. 8 was unconstitutional and that for them to appeal the decision would be unethical. ProtectMarriage -- the proponents of Prop 8 -- were able to act in the place of the Government. They appealed the decision to a 3 judge panel of U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, and later to the full Court. They lost both times.

On 2012-AUG-31 they appealed the case to the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS). The high court tentatively accepted the appeal on 2012-DEC-07. Oral arguments were held on 2013-MAR-26. The court issued its ruling on 2013-JUN-26. SCOTUS sidestepped the decision. Rather than determine whether Prop. 8 was unconstitutional or not, they decided that ProtectMarriage had no legal standing to initiate the appeal; they had no right to appeal the case either to the Supreme Court or to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. The District Court's decision stands: Prop. 8 is unconstitutional.

Only one item needed to be cleared up before same-sex couples could marry. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had placed a stay on their ruling that had to be removed. The court originally stated that they would leave their stay in place for at least 25 days, so that ProtectMarriage or the California government could appeal the District Court's decision. There was some speculation that ProtectMarriage would mount an appeal to limit SSM in California to just two counties or just the four defendants. However, on JUN-28, after only two days, the Court of Appeals reversed their decision and terminated the hold on SSMs. Couples started to be married within hours. Some rushed to obtain their marriage licenses out of their strong desire to be married. Others were motivated by a concern that some legal maneouver might materialize and close off access to same-sex marriage without warning.

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

• Create a new Proposition to repeal Prop. 8

• Would a state citizen initiative on same-sex marriage (SSM) in California or another state have passed in 2012-NOV?

Option 2: Perry v. Schwarzenegger (later renamed Hollingsworth v. Perry) lawsuit to challenge the 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 world views; 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 9th U.S. 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.
    
    
  • 2011-DEC: A three judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals holds hearing re: constitutionality of Prop. 8
    
    
  • 2012-FEB: Panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals finds Proposition 8 unconstitutional. Reactions
    
    
  • 2012-FEB to MAR: More reactions to the 9th Circuit ruling
    
    
  • 2012-MAR to now: Appeals court refuses to review the case. Case appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court
    
    
  • Appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS):
  • 2012-DEC: Reactions to the U.S. Supreme Court's acceptance of the case. Speculation on the court's future ruling
    
    
  • 2012/2013: Speculation on the court's future ruling (Cont'd). Oral arguments scheduled
    
    
  • 2013: Amicus Curia briefs filed with the U.S. Supreme Court
    
    
  • 2013-FEB/MAR: Unusual interpretation of the case by the National Organization for Marriage. March organized
    
    
  • 2013-FEB: More Amicus Curia briefs filed. Probable impact of Supreme Court's decision
    
    
  • 2013-FEB: Amici Curiae brief filed by Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and 19 other religious groups
    
    
  • 2013-MAR: More speculation on what the Supreme Court decision will be
    
    
  • 2013-MAR-26: U.S. Supreme Court justices heard oral argument: Part 1   Part 2
    
    
  •  2013-JUN:
    • U.S. Supreme Court ruling: Prop. 8 is unconstitutional. Marriage equality wins
      
      
    • 2013-JUN: Is the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling a great leap forward or horrendous national disaster?
      
      
      • Reactions to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling
        
        
      • More reactions
        
        
      • Still more reactions
        
        
      • Some final reactions to the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling
        
        
    • ProtectMarriage launches two more appeals to terminate SSM in California
      
      
    • First ProtectMarriage appeal rejected. County clerk issues new appeal
      
      
• Polling data on SSM in California:
  • 1997 to now: Support for, and opposition to, SSM. Webmaster's comments

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