Back Proposition 8 German Proposición 8 (California) Spanish پیشنهادی کالیفرنیا ۸ Persian Proposition 8 Finnish Proposition 8 French California Proposition 8 Hungarian Proposition 8 ID California Proposition 8 Italian Proposition 8 Malay Proposition 8 Dutch
 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
Eliminates Rights of Same-Sex Couples to Marry | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Results | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Source: California Secretary of State[1] | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Elections in California |
|---|
 |
Proposition 8, known informally as Prop 8, was a California ballot proposition and a state constitutional amendment intended to ban same-sex marriage; it passed in the November 2008 California state elections and was later overturned in court. The proposition was created by opponents of same-sex marriage in advance[2] of the California Supreme Court's May 2008 appeal ruling, In re Marriage Cases, which followed the short-lived 2004 same-sex weddings controversy and found the previous ban on same-sex marriage (Proposition 22, 2000) unconstitutional. Proposition 8 was ultimately ruled unconstitutional by a federal court (on different grounds) in 2010, although the court decision did not go into effect until June 26, 2013, following the conclusion of proponents' appeals.
Proposition 8 countermanded the 2008 ruling by adding the same provision as in Proposition 22 to the California Constitution, providing that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California", thereby superseding the 2008 ruling.[3][4][5] As an amendment, it was ruled constitutional by the California Supreme Court in Strauss v. Horton in 2009, on the grounds that it "carved out a limited [or 'narrow'] exception to the state equal protection clause"; in his dissent, Justice Carlos R. Moreno wrote that exceptions to the equal protection clause could not be made by any majority since its whole purpose was to protect minorities against the will of a majority.
Legal challenges to Proposition 8 were presented by opponents quickly after its approval. Following affirmation by the state courts, two same-sex couples filed a lawsuit against the initiative in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in the case Perry v. Schwarzenegger (later Hollingsworth v. Perry). In August 2010, Chief Judge Vaughn Walker ruled that the amendment was unconstitutional under both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment,[6] since it purported to re-remove rights from a disfavored class only, with no rational basis. The official proponents' justifications for the measure were analyzed in over fifty pages covering eighty findings of fact. The state government supported the ruling and refused to defend the law.[7] The ruling was stayed pending appeal by the proponents of the initiative. On February 7, 2012, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2–1 decision, reached the same conclusion as the district court, but on narrower grounds. The court ruled that it was unconstitutional for California to grant marriage rights to same-sex couples, only to take them away shortly after. The ruling was stayed pending appeal to the United States Supreme Court.[8]
On June 26, 2013, the Supreme Court of the United States issued its decision on the appeal in the case Hollingsworth v. Perry, ruling that proponents of initiatives such as Proposition 8 did not possess legal standing in their own right to defend the resulting law in federal court, either to the Supreme Court or (previously) to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Therefore, the Supreme Court vacated the decision of the Ninth Circuit, and remanded the case for further proceedings. The decision left the district court's 2010 ruling intact.[9][10][11] On June 28, 2013, the Ninth Circuit, on remand, dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and dissolved their previous stay of the district court's ruling, enabling Governor Jerry Brown to order same-sex marriages to resume.[12]
The passage of Proposition 8 received widespread media coverage over the amendment's effect on the concurrent 2008 presidential and congressional elections, as well as the pre-election effects Proposition 8 had on California's reputation as a historically LGBT-friendly state and the same-sex marriage debate that had started after same-sex marriage was legalized in Massachusetts through a 2004 court decision. After the results were certified and same-sex marriages ceased, supporters of the initiative were targeted by opponents with actions ranging from some opponents disclosing supporter donations and boycotting proponents' businesses, to others threatening supporters with death and vandalizing churches.
A ballot proposal to formally repeal Prop 8 from California's constitution was passed by the California State Legislature in July 2023. The vote will take place during the 2024 elections.
- ^ Cite error: The named reference
statementofvotewas invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ "Pro-Family Group Says Effort to Ban Calif. Gay 'Marriage' Looks 'Strong'". Christianpost.com. 2008-04-05. Retrieved 2013-11-01.
- ^ Cite error: The named reference
textwas invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ Cite error: The named reference
sos.ca.govwas invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ Text of Proposition 8 Archived 2013-04-18 at the Wayback Machine, Official Voter Information Guide (draft copy). Retrieved July 28, 2008
- ^ "Judge strikes down Prop. 8, allows gay marriage in California". Los Angeles Times. August 4, 2010. Retrieved February 22, 2012.
- ^ "Hollingsworth et al. v. Perry et al. Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit No. 12–144. Argued March 26, 2013—Decided June 26, 2013" (PDF). Retrieved 2013-12-03.
- ^ "No. 10-16606" (PDF). US Courts. February 7, 2012. Retrieved April 17, 2021.
- ^ "Prop 8 ruling explained: Why gay marriage will resume in California. NBC June 26, 2013". Nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com. 2013-06-26. Retrieved 2013-12-03.
- ^ Savage, David G. (2013-06-26). "Prop. 8: Supreme Court clears way for gay marriage in California. Los Angeles Times June 26, 2013 Politics Now". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 2013-12-03.
- ^ Schwartz, John (26 June 2013). "Guide to the Supreme Court Decision on Proposition 8" – via NYTimes.com.
- ^ Dolan, Maura (2013-06-28). "Prop 8: Gay marriages can resume in California, court rules". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 2013-12-03.
© MMXXIII Rich X Search. We shall prevail. All rights reserved. Rich X Search