The University of Southern California’s Initiative and Referendum Institute has a fascinating new report on Proposition 8, which seeks to outlaw gay marriage in California.
Besides walking readers through a history of gay marriage measures in other states, the report offers a succinct analysis of why so much — money, effort, time — has been dumped into this campaign.As the report states: "The huge amount of money being channeled to fight this proposition, despite its minimal economic impact, reflects the view of both sides that California is a critical firewall in the battle over gay marriage. Rejection of Proposition 8, in effect a popular affirmation of the right to gay marriage, would provide tremendous momentum to the gay rights side, especially since it comes in a huge state that is seen by many as a trendsetter."
The report adds that campaign finance reports show out-of-state contributions to both the Yes and No campaigns for Prop. 8 are high. It concludes that "Spending on Proposition 8, currently at $55 million, is likely to reach a record level for a social issue."
That dovetails with something my colleague at the Register, Marla Jo Fisher, told me — that her mother, in Utah, that the Mormon church is asking residents there to urge their California friends to support Prop. 8.
This measure, clearly, means something to activists across the country. It’ll be interesting to see how that plays out on Nov. 4.
What individual right, pray tell, had been taken away prior to the state Supreme Court decision? Was there a prior "right" to same-sex marriage?
No, there was not. The court cited the domestic partnership laws that had been passed during the last decade and decided those created second-class citizenship for gays - never mind that domestic partnerships aren't limited to gay people, or that they were passed in order to give more legal rights to gay couples.
And it bears mentioning that Prop. 8 is not simply "a majority vote, legislative enactment or administrative decision." It is a proposed constitutional amendment, and in case the esteemed libertarian hands at the Reg have forgotten, we the people have the right to alter or abolish any form of government that is destructive of our liberties - and I think the judicial despotism of which the Reg approves qualifies. That's why the Founders gave us the amendment process, so we could do the altering peacefully.
Posts
