Proposition 8 Timeline: California's Same-Sex Marriage Ban Over The Years (PHOTOS)

In a move that will likely be seen as a blow to most supporters of marriage equality, the California Supreme Court ruled today to allow opponents to defend the ban on same-sex marriage in federal court, writing that doing so was backed by the state's constitution.

Now, as Reuters is reporting, the legal battle over the ban is expected to reach the U.S. Supreme Court, which then could rule on whether there is a federal constitutional right for gay couples to wed.

The ban on same-sex marriage in California has its share of roller coaster-like setbacks and advances in recent years.

Take a look at a timeline of events below (captions created with reports from The Los Angeles Times, Reuters, The New Civil Rights Movement, Prop 8 Trial Tracker and GOOD Blog)

Comments

[Wade Donon Young]

06:12 PM on 12/04/2011

first off, there was NO such thing at the CA State level as Domestic Partnership rights prior to 2003 and certainly nothing at the State level prior to the March 7, 2000 Prop 22 initiative. This information is incorrect. Secondly, there are some steps completely omitted in this timeline, including the fact that the CA Supreme Court upheld Prop 8 in the Spring after the 2008 election and Kenneth Starr represented the Prop 8 haters. However, in the same decision, the court upheld that the 18,000 marriages performed between their original decision and the vote on Prop 8 would remain intact..providing an extra layer of unequal benefit to the people of CA. Last, the biggest withholding of rights and benefits is due to the lack of federal recognition (DOMA).

[ssullymets]

07:19 PM on 11/20/2011

How come the gay community didn't demonstrate in African American neigborhoods in California.
They voted down equal rights marriages more then 4-1, but they were all over a helpless beauty queen Carrie Prejean when she just said she was raised in a traditional family, but was had nothing against gay marriages. That comment was factual (discussing her family) and open minded. Since she just didn't jump up and down and said her favorite things in life is two gay gentlemen getting hitched, Perez Hilton with his self promoting "phoney" question and acting
hurt, dismayed,shocked, and "outraged" by her honest nonaggressive comments.

[Asmondius]

04:43 PM on 11/22/2011

Because they pick their targets carefully.

[Joseph Mustich]

03:30 PM on 11/18/2011

It's time America.
Cheers, Joe Mustich, CT USA
Marriage Officiant & Justice of the Peace.

[LMPE]

07:31 PM on 11/17/2011

I notice that all those yokels who say that they want government out of everyone's lives also think that the government should deny LGBT people all rights.

[Asmondius]

04:45 PM on 11/22/2011

I notice that pro-homo people tend to always call others names ('yokels') while they bleat about 'rights'.

Seems to be a funny way to win influence.

[realityhp]

06:03 PM on 11/17/2011

The Federal and State governments should give FULL Equality Marriage Rights and benefits to consenting adults (Straight AND Gay), and it would be up to each church as to whether or not they want to perform that straight or gay marriage ceremony based on their religious beliefs.

If the government does not allow full equality marriage rights to Straight and Gay people, then the government should get out of the marriage business completely, giving NO marriage benefits to ANYONE (straight or gay), etc. and allow churches to perform their own marriage ceremonies (straight or gay), PERIOD.

[AKJM]

11:15 PM on 11/17/2011

Agreed, the state should only issue domestic partnership license and let the parties initiate their union as they choose.

[mjw51295]

06:51 AM on 11/18/2011

second class is no acceptable, the united states says equal protection under the law. Marriage recognized by the state is a civil contract between two people. Church is only granted the the power to do the states business. I if y ou want religious law move to iran

[Asmondius]

04:47 PM on 11/22/2011

I alos notice that pro-homo people always want to make up the rules for everyone else. 'If we don't get it you can't have it' - nyahh nyahh!'

Please spell out the big 'rights and benefits' you are so hot for.

[realityhp]

04:31 PM on 11/17/2011

Prop 8 should be repealed. MANY people realize negative attitudes against Gay people are usually based on BIGOTRY, PREJUDICE, HATE, and/or IGNORANCE, which becomes OBVIOUS when the irrational, illogical, and/or hypocritical reasons BELOW used to deny gay people Equal Rights are EXPOSED. MARRIAGE CONCEPT - Throughout centuries, there have been several God-ordained concepts for marriage. ‘Traditional’ doesn't mean that something should never change.
CHOICE: Even if sexual orientations ARE a choice, like Religion, that would mean Gays, Straights, Religious people CHOOSE, so all of them should have Equal Rights.
RELIGION - Per the U.S. Constitution, Laws MUST be adopted with a secular and NOT a religious purpose, and we have the freedom of and from religion.
PROCREATION - Many Gays and Straights have sex and NEVER have children and there are many who are biological and adoptive parents, or parents due to IVF, etc.
MORALS - Just because someone's morals are different does not necessarily mean yours are BETTER or WORSE. It means yours are Different..
BEST FOR THE CHILD - Reputable studies show children raised by Gay couples are just as well adjusted/successful as those raised by a traditional mother and father.
FLAUNTING - If heterosexuals can state their sexual orientation, acknowledge their husband/wife/significant other, family, kiss, touch, hold hands, in public DAILY, why can’t homosexuals have that same right?
MAJORITY - If we made laws based only on the majority, many groups in the U.S. wouldn’t have equal rights (ie. Races, women, gays, religion, etc.)

[Asmondius]

05:30 PM on 11/22/2011

If this is suppoosed to serve as some sort of convincing argument that we should turn marriage on its head, it is no wonder that Prop 8 passed in the mosty liberal of the states.

Get the message of reality - two men can never equal a man and woman.

My favorite part of your tortured logic is:
'Just because someone's morals are different does not necessaril­y mean yours are BETTER or WORSE. It means yours are Different.­. '

That is exactly the ethic that Sandusky follows.

[USA7]

03:15 PM on 11/17/2011

call it what ever you want OTHER THEN MARRIAGE. MARRIAGE IS A RELIGOUS TERM>>>>>>>>>>>> if you want religon out of the gov't here is a start.

[sammyvin]

04:02 PM on 11/17/2011

No religion owns the word marriage! Atheists have gotten married all along, and I never heard any objections.

[Asmondius]

04:56 PM on 11/22/2011

Marriage is a religious construct, adopted by by the state for health and other purposes. The word 'marriage, means man and woman, period.

Atheist marriages are male to female as are all others - who would object unless they wanted to have a church ceremony?

Is this supposed to be some large argument in favor of homosexual marriage? Not.

[Valksy]

04:22 PM on 11/17/2011

Wrong. The modern church did not try to assert control marriage until the 16th century, until then it was willing to bless ceremonies happening within local jurisdictions and under local law.

Marriage is a civil contract between two consenting adults, framed by the law. People who have a ceremony in a cathedral are married, people who have a ceremony with an Elvis impersonator mid scuba-dive are married. The nature of the ceremony is only relevant to the participants.

[Mikeygr]

05:05 PM on 11/17/2011

Exactly - every ordained person in any denomination is required to sign a marriage certificate issued ONLY by the state!!!! This IS a civil institution - the religious part is optional.

[Asmondius]

05:09 PM on 11/22/2011

Wishful historical interpretation on your part. I don't recall evidence of a church blessing homosexual civil marriages in the past. Hint - which existed first, Israelite culture or the formal Israelite state?

Marriage is a religious institution adopted by the civil state for various reasons. It is Specifically for the joining of a man and woman - 'asset control' is only a byproduct of the package. Where they join is irrelevant.

If it were merely a common 'civil contract between two adults', then it would not be an institution within the culture. Two men can never equal a man and woman - not biologically, philosophically or otherwise.

If you had the wisdom to accept this, you probably would have had your 'civil contract' equivalent long ago. By overreaching, you have just about seen the crest of your efforts.

[Mikeygr]

03:10 PM on 11/17/2011

This is NOT a blow to supporters of marriage equality at all. In fact, the extremely weak case of the proponents of Prop 8 will be exposed to the higher courts for a ruling that will end this discrimination once and for all time. If this ruling had not happened this way, those who oppose marriage equality would forever be saying they were not allowed to prove their case in a higher court.

[Dawg1000]

02:10 PM on 11/17/2011

This was voted on 3 years ago. The people voted against gay marriage in the State of California and that should be the end of it. And we wonder why people don't bother to get out and vote anymore. This will take peace away from our country.

[Mikeygr]

02:58 PM on 11/17/2011

The civil rights of a minority group of people are NOT open to public vote. This has been determined more than once in the past by the SCOTUS. Time to move on and worry about some other problem you don't have.....and let ALL tax paying citizens be treated equally.

[Asmondius]

05:17 PM on 11/22/2011

How is your 'minority group' defined? By the practice of sodomy?

Not much to pull a group together with, is it? People with blue eyes have more in common as a group than homosexuals do.

As far as taxpayers - many of us are becoming wise to the fact that enormous sums of taxpayer money are being laid out for free condoms, training, research, medical assistance while homosexuals continue to remain responsible for the majority of new and existing AIDS cases.

I'd say you may be a a net negative on a revenue basis.

No matter how many taxes you pay - you can't be a woman. You can't get maternity leave and you can't get married.

[not2 good]

05:30 PM on 11/17/2011

By your reasoning a vote in the Southern States in the nineteen-fifties for segregation should stand. Persons of different races would not be allowed to marry. Going back to the early nineteen hundreds women would not be allowed to vote. Its all about how you interpret civil rights.

[Asmondius]

05:19 PM on 11/22/2011

Homosexuality is not a race or gender - get over it. No one buys your little playbook on 'civil rights' any more.

There is no civil right for two men to be treated as a man and a woman.