Proposition 8 Repeal Approved For Signature Gathering

On Friday, California Secretary of State Debra Bowen granted a gay rights group permission to move forward with a petition seeking to reinstate same-sex marriage in California.

The initiative was instigated by Los Angeles group Love Honor Cherish. The group must gather 807,615 signatures -- or 8 percent of the total votes cast for governor in the 2010 gubernatorial election -- in order to qualify the measure for the ballot, and all signatures are due by May 14, 2012.

The initiative would amend the California Constitution to read that, "marriage is between only two persons and shall not be restricted on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, gender, sexual orientation, or religion." It would also clarify that the initiative "shall not be interpreted to require any priest, minister, pastor, rabbi, or other person to perform a marriage in violation of his or her religious beliefs."

The initiative comes on the heels of Perry vs. Schwarzenegger, the so-called Prop. 8 trial -- a federal lawsuit that challenges the constitutionality of Proposition 8. The decision of that trial could be handed down as early as this month, but Love Honor Cherish says the group is not waiting for the lawsuit to unfold.

"Obviously we are hoping that case succeeds in overturning Prop. 8," said Love Honor Cherish interim Executive Director Eric Harrison to The Huffington Post. "But we need to be prepared to put this on the ballot in case the court case doesn't go well. We are approaching this with an offensive strategy and sending a message that we're not just going to be reactive anymore."

Love Honor Cherish is talking to firms that specialize in signature gathering, and has hired Harrison to focus specifically on the ballot measure.

"When we first approached this in 2010, we relied solely on volunteers," said Harrison. "And now, although we've always had tremendous community support, we don't have any illusions about what we need to do, and we know that we need people devoting their time and energy to this entirely. It's too important."

Proposition 8, the initiative that amended the California constitution to read that only marriages between a man and a woman would be considered valid, was passed with a 52 percent vote in 2008 -- just five months after the state Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage. The proposition's passing surprised many Californians, and opponents immediately launched repeal campaigns, investigations and even a musical mocking support groups.

"Life is tragically short," said Harrison. "And every day that gays and lesbians aren't allowed to marry is another day that we are denying equality. That sends a message not only to those who aren't allowed to marry, but to everyone -- to our children. It's time for us to seize the day and claim our rights."

Comments

[Diana Scrimger]

02:24 PM on 01/20/2012

The Yes on Prop 8 side is going to win. Marriage is between a man and a woman. The Yes on Prop 8 side can prove that you cannot marry an AKA, The Yes on Prop 8 man is openly straight. Also he will win in court because he has standing. This will prove to the world that the dead do have more power than the living!

[Diana Scrimger]

01:56 PM on 01/20/2012

The Yes on Prop 8 side will win. The Yes on Prop 8 side can prove standing. Because the Yes on Prop 8 man is openly straight. The Yes on Prop 8 man is really smarter than you think. That is why we feel that we are going to win!

[AquariusNSF]

03:33 PM on 12/25/2011

Judge Walker was under no obligation to state his sexual orientation. That is just ridiculous.

[GDWhiteman]

03:37 PM on 12/25/2011

I could be wrong, but I strongly suspect that GLBTQ folks are more interested in equal rights than they are about appealing to your emotions.

[Diana Scrimger]

11:44 PM on 12/23/2011

The yes on Prop 8 side will win. Marriage is between a man and a woman. The Yes on Prop 8 side can prove that you cannot marry an AKA. The real winner will be JB and not Jerry Brown.

[talkstocoyotes]

02:28 PM on 12/24/2011

The yes on Prop H8 side had ample opportunity to "prove that you cannot marry" a person of your own gender at the trial last year. They fell flat on their faces with a huge splat.

[bannorhill]

10:57 PM on 12/25/2011

They fell flat because Judge Walker ingnored every prior Federal ruling on same sex marriage including rulings by higher courts and cases that shoule have been binding precidence (Baker v Nelson).

[Albert Ray DOrazio]

06:39 PM on 12/29/2011

Actually, support for marriage equality is on the rise. Marriage should be "between two consensual adults who love each other, no matter what sexual orientation, gender, religion, and race." Otherwise, you discriminate against gay people and tell them that they are second class citizens who can't have the same right that you heterosexuals already have.

"The yes on 8 can prove that you can not marry an 'AKA'"? What's that? Gay people are not asking to marry a thing, we're asking to marry that one person we love.

The repeal of Prop H8 will eventually become a reality, whether it's this year or in 4 years. Love, and equality will prevail.

[OS2Guy]

10:57 PM on 12/23/2011

Absolutely. Sign it. Vote for gay marriage. I'm one of the few legally married same-sex couples in San Francisco and it will take years before it may be even possible for my same-sex friends and neighbors to marry - if the right-wing Supreme Court doesn't stop them. End it now. Take it to the voting box. Vote same-sex marriage in. Stop discriminating against the gay community!

[Gal Friday]

05:53 PM on 12/24/2011

RE:"if the right-wing Supreme Court doesn't stop them"

We don't know it's going to the U.S. Supreme Court. It could stay at the 9th Circuit level.

[bannorhill]

11:00 PM on 12/25/2011

Since the ruling was contrary to every prior federal ruling it will probably go to the US Supreme court.

[SteveHansen]

07:48 AM on 12/23/2011

A ballot proposition is a profoundly bad idea, just now.

It has taken years of lawyering and millions of dollars to get marriage equality into the Federal courts. They just finished the oral arguments at the appeals court. An appeal decision is due shortly -- very likely within a couple months. Then the SCOTUS stage of the appeal will take one or two years.

If CA repeals prop 8 at the ballot box before that appeal is finished, it "moots" the Federal case. Either way, CA will get marriage equality.

The difference is, the OTHER 42 STATES.

My partner and I live in Florida. The ONLY way we can get marriage equality, is if the SCOTUS makes that ruling. There is basically no way in H that the state of Florida will voluntarily repeal its DOMA-like constitutional amendment.

For people who live in California -- you might like to travel out-of-state, someday. When you travel to a state that has a DOMA amendment, you are (surprise!) NOT MARRIED as far as that state is concerned.

[Gal Friday]

01:56 PM on 12/23/2011

Absolutely right in everything you say. Thank you.

Though, it won't necessarily take up to 2 years for the U.S. Supreme Court to rule, because (as in all lawsuits), there's many different paths a case can go down.

It hasn't been established the h8ers have STANDING to appeal Judge Walker's decision. If the 9th Circuit (where the argument is now) agrees with Judge Walker's sucessor (Judge Ware) that they DON'T, then that would be the only issue the Supreme Court weighs in on, and since they have stated many times that proponants similar to the H8ers DON'T have standing, the case may get wound up earlier.

[CalLawyer]

09:03 PM on 12/23/2011

And there is no way in H that SCOTUS will make marriage legal in the other 42 states in the Perry Case. No legal scholar believes that is possible.

[SteveHansen]

12:52 PM on 12/24/2011

I have read several dozen law review articles, that say otherwise. Cites to a few of them can be found, here: http://law-library.rutgers.edu/SSM.html#pro

[Gal Friday]

05:07 PM on 12/24/2011

RE: "No legal scholar believes that is possible."

What are you talking about? It's very much up for grabs...and interestingly, it was the loathsome Justice Antonin Scalia's dissent in Lawrence v. Texas that acknowledged that same sex marriage did not have legal barriers at SCOTUS any more.: (His dissent was even cited in Judge Walker's -- favorable -- "Perry" ruling.) Part of what the uber-conservative Scalia wrote was:

"This reasoning leaves on pretty shaky grounds state laws limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples...“preserving the traditional institution of marriage” is just a kinder way of describing the State’s moral disapproval of same-sex couples."

[Gal Friday]

08:15 PM on 12/22/2011

So, in California we got into this latest round when the 2004 San Francisco Mayor allowed same sex marriage licenses to be issued. Then that decision was upheld in the CA Supreme Court in 2008, and Prop H8 soon followed in reaction to that. Then we had "Perry v. Schwarzenegger", which is moving up the FEDERAL court system, and has won so far.

Isn't it more secure to let that play out as the top lawyers in the country (Olson & Boies) have laid out the case, rather than get it kicked out of the system by a potential win at the ballot box, which renders the whole "Perry" case moot?

How long do we want to go back and forth with this in the voting booths? Even IF we had a CA ballot win, the other side would just put one on the ballot the next time, trying to undo it....which we'd all have to devote time and money to fighting all over again.

The answer to this problem is NOT by voting on Civil Rights through a mob mentality. The more secure, and lasting, approach is through the court system...which is where "Perry v. Schwarzenegger" is doing very well, right now.

[mjmjupiter]

11:57 AM on 12/22/2011

I have no problem if gays want to have a CIVIL UNION and call it just that and grant them all the rights married men and women have, but call it something else or I'll vote it down and so will most America. Personally, I think it quite selfish and selfserving to think gays can have the right to change the meaning of marriage. When in almost every culture around the world see marraige as between a man and a woman. To all of you who disagree, TFB.

[xenas mom]

01:40 PM on 12/22/2011

Yet, here we are, a couple hundred thousand legally married same sex couples living right here, right now in the good old US of A. Our licenses and certificates of marriage are identical to those held by opposite-sex couples. In our state, there is no such terminology as "CIVIL UNION", just so you know; indeed, that is the case in many states. And, as you so succinctly state: " To all of you who disagree, TFB."

[mjmjupiter]

02:12 PM on 12/22/2011

YOU can call it whatever you want, even "Marriage" but it still doesn't change the meaning of marraige to include same sex couples. But if it helps you sleep at night go ahead.

[Alan Chan]

06:54 PM on 12/22/2011

You might want to expand your understanding of "every" culture. I'm not a fan of people making overly broad and simplified statements that completely ignore the breadth of history by creating a forcefield around their understanding of the world. The TFB attitude is unsympathetic and hateful but that is why minorities fight.

[proscanusa]

11:50 AM on 12/22/2011

shamoan. let's not get our hopes up yet...we be gettin kicked down like dogs again and again.

[Lester Aponte]

12:24 AM on 12/22/2011

DOWNLOAD THE PETITION AND INSTRUCTIONS FOR SIGNATURE GATHERING HERE

http://www.lovehonorcherish.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=618:signature-gathering-materials&catid=74:print-material&Itemid=119

[josie klapper]

08:07 PM on 12/31/2011

Thanks, posted to my fb page...

[TarzanaGirl]

10:25 PM on 12/21/2011

In the same way that school children are currently studying the history of Women's Rights, Civil Rights, Child Labor Laws, Voting Rights, Worker Rights, and everything else the American people have fought long and hard for - in order to ensure that one day there really will be EQUALITY FOR ALL in the USA - years from now another generation of school children will look back on the "gay marriage" debate and shake their heads in dismay while asking "Why weren't gay people allowed to marry in 2011?" In the meantime we need to keep this issue ALIVE!!!

[vtrob77]

06:52 PM on 12/21/2011

The only problem with that initiative, is it should require any person in their official capacity as a government employee to perform marriages without discrimination, regardless of their religious beliefs. If you perform marriages as function of a governmental office, you shouldn't be able to discriminate.

[Ioan Lightoller]

07:59 PM on 12/21/2011

Thank you. Public servants should serve the entire public. If they wish to discriminate they can find a job elsewhere.

[PillowCaseLaw]

02:11 AM on 12/22/2011

While I agree with the sentiment, I wonder if there are already any such measures in California statute that already require that public servants refrain from discrimination. I'm not arguing against what you're saying, just holding out hope that the wording was omitted due to redundancy and not oversight or over-compromise.

[vtrob77]

09:58 AM on 12/22/2011

I'm sure there are, however, doesn't a constitutional amendment take precedent over statutes? That's my concern. I would hope there's another amendment or provision that would not allow that... I remain hopeful, but skeptical. :-)

[pbrunda]

05:57 PM on 12/21/2011

Ok, so...
Supreme Court decision pending...
Prop 8 repeal efforts in hand of pros to gather signatures...

...and the gay community adds victims of lifetime discrimination with each would-be partner ineligible for survivors benefits in the meantime...
Are there any legal efforts being made on their behalf? Are there documents available to attest to their desire to be married and the denial of it in violation of their constitutional rights that could be presented upon legalization that would afford these people any future claim to survivor's benefits?

[marind]

06:25 PM on 12/21/2011

Good point.

[Gal Friday]

07:36 PM on 12/21/2011

I don't think I understand the question, exactly : (

But at least the "Perry v. Schwarzenegger" case is on the federal level, so the further it moves along, the more federal programs it will effect. That would be undercut by a successful voter initiative (like Love Honor Cherish's proposed one) making that Perry moot, and stopping it in its tracks. Blaaagh!

[pbrunda]

08:03 PM on 12/21/2011

While this issue is tied up in court, partners of those who would be wed but pass away in the interim are ineligible for the survivor benefits of married individuals. These couples are in a legal limbo. Had the issue been resolved faster, they may have had the opportunity to marry. Unless there is some plan on their behalf to allow them to seek those benefits posthumously, the surviving partner will suffer the consequences of the unconstitutional ban for their lifetime. That doesn't seem right. Gays are in the position of gaining the right of marriage because of the work and efforts of those who have gone before, as well as present day advocates. Out of respect for them, the community should seek means of assisting in my opinion.

[erdkz2389]

05:30 PM on 12/21/2011

Hope they can collect the signatures! Although, I'd rather see the Supreme Court take the issue of same-sex marriage, and deem it constitutional throughout the US.

[David N Taiwan]

06:23 PM on 12/21/2011

In the past, I would have agreed with you, but with the bizzare thinking going on with half the court, no telling what the outcome would be.

[Gal Friday]

07:13 PM on 12/21/2011

We don't necessarily have to worry about how the US Supreme Court would vote. There's no assurance they will hear the case, so Walker's amazing ruling could well stand, depending on the 9th Circuits' upcoming ruling(s).

[josie klapper]

06:55 PM on 12/31/2011

The SCOTUS will be FORCED to take the issue up, and soon. Not over Prop H8 though. The repeal of DADT and the affects of THAT under DOMA is what will force it. And it will be tossed out under the "Full Faith and Credit" clause.
Basically once the Lawrence ruling tossed the archaic sodomy laws in this country any legal basis for DADT and DOMA fell with it. And with out that then the "Full Faith and Credit" clause comes to the fore.
Believe me, various "H8'ers" tried REAL hard to try to keep DADT even under those circumstances, but they finally dropped their organized "objections" to the repeal because someone did the math and even with THIS SCOTUS it was going to LOSE. They were looking at what would probably be a 7-2 split AGAINST DADT. And THAT would have put a lot of the legal discrimination against gays to bed. Mind you, the group that was pushing the legal, not legislative end of DADT was the Log Cabin REPUBLICANS...

[Mike Cullinan]

03:27 PM on 12/21/2011

807,615 # sigs required
144 days until May 14 deadline
5,592.92 # sigs per day, from now
$3.00 average cost per signature
$2,422,845 approximate total cost
500,000 reported funds of LHC

I wouldn't spend too much time worrying about this.

[Ioan Lightoller]

04:24 PM on 12/21/2011

Like to demean same-sex couples, do you? Like to condescend to us, do you? Wonderful. how YOU would like one of YOUR rights taken away by elective fiat?

[Mike Cullinan]

11:25 PM on 12/21/2011

There is no constitutional right to marry someone of the same sex. That's the case law that has been established for about the last 40 years. The 14th Amendment is not an open-ended amendment to cover every conceivable novelty.

Gay marriage is not "deeply rooted in this country's history and traditions" according to court precedent.

[Oneandoneandone]

05:13 PM on 12/21/2011

I'm going to sign it for free. I'm a CA voter. How do you like them apples?