Prop 8: Why 18,000 Is The Critical Number

(Image Credit: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

In the months leading up to the passage of Proposition 8 - the controversial 2008 California ballot initiative that bans gay marriage - some 18,000 same sex couples obtained marriage licenses.

The marriages came to a screeching halt when Prop 8 was passed with 52 percent of the vote.

Today, a federal appeals court is poised to rule on the measure. Prop 8 supporters says they are fighting for the traditional definition of marriage. Opponents argue that Prop 8 violates constitutional rights.

In 2010 U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn R. Walker struck down Proposition 8, ruling that it "both unconstitutionally burdens the exercise of the fundamental right to marry and creates an irrational classification on the basis of sexual orientation."

Today, before reaching the constitutional question , the panel of three judges from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals will have to decide whether to vacate Walker's decision because he failed to disclose at the time of the Prop 8 trial that he had been involved in a long term same sex relationship, although he was not married. Supporters of Prop 8 argue Walker had an interest in the outcome of the case.

The court will also decide whether the supporters of Prop 8 have the legal right to defend the law in court after California's public officials declined to do so. If the court finds that the supporters of Prop 8 have the necessary "standing," the court will then decide whether it is constitutional.

Judges:

The judges involved in the case are Stephen Reinhardt, Michael Hawkins and N. Randy Smith. While Reinhardt and Hawkins were nominated by Democratic presidents, Smith was appointed by a Republican. They heard arguments in the case in December 2010.

Plaintiffs and lawyers:

The case was brought by two same sex couples, Kris Perry and Sandy Stier, as well as Paul Katami and Jeff Zarrillo. The lead lawyers representing the couples are David Boies and Theodore Olson. The pairing of Boies and Olson is unusual because the two fought on opposite sides of another historic case: Bush v. Gore.

When California's governor and attorney general declined to defend Proposition 8, the official proponents -ProtectMarriage.com - stepped in to do so. Charles J. Cooper is the lead counsel.

At oral arguments Cooper told the court that the case involved a fundamental question: "Whether the definition of marriage - that momentous issue - is one for the people themselves to resolve through the democratic process as they did in enacting Proposition 8 or whether out Constitution takes that issue essential out of their hands and decides it for them."

Olson told the judges, "California has built a fence around its gay and lesbian citizens and it has built a fence around the institution of marriage which the Supreme Court says - not based upon sex or procreation or anything else - is the most important relation in life. And the citizens of California within that one fence because of their sexual orientation are denied access to what every other citizen of California has that are enclosed in that other fence. That is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause and it's a violation of the Due Process Clause."

Currently six states and the District of Columbia issue marriage licenses to same sex couples: Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire, New York and the District of Columbia.

Also Read
 

21 comments

  • N.  •  3 months ago
    Why would it matter if the Judge was gay? If the Judge(s) were all Hetro then wouldn't they too have a interest in the outcome of Prop 8? I'm just mad that our tax dollars are being wasted even talking about this. Whether you're hetro or #$%$ I don't see why it's such a divided issue. Our culture is not radical. You can have kids without being married, with no partner at all (donor sperm), have someone else carry your baby (surrogate), raise kids by only mom or dad... so what does it matter if a marriage can be btw 2 hetrosexuals or #$%$sexuals?It's choice... you decide for yourself, not for others, in matters that do not cause harm... and I can't see how someone else's marriage would hurt yours.Just stop wasting our tax dollars going back and forth on this. We have other more important jobs to do.
  • Me  •  3 months ago
    As a gay man, I would like to take the time to THANK the mormon church for legalizing gay marriage. The non-existant arguments that were presented to the courts greased the skids to usher in a new area. On behalf of gays around the country, I would like to say that you can count on us to support you when it's time to legalize polygamy. Now that it has been settled in court that consenting adults have a right to marry you too shall have what you seek all in good time. For all you have done, we thank you!
    • HoneyBear 3 months ago
      You're a disgusting scrap of humanity and I sure as hell wouldn't broadcast it that I was gay. You're so full of chit.
    • Watchman on the Wall 3 months ago
      Homosexuality is a perversion of the normal!
    • Me 3 months ago
      Sorry guys, you will have to show a lot more power to push me in the closet. Doubt either of you could man up to the task.
  • Edmarc  •  Montgomery, Alabama  •  3 months ago
    So, there are a million prisoners with over 200,000 convicted for child sex crimes. Is that a critical number too?
    • MichaelW 3 months ago
      this could be easily solved and a huge financial savings with 200,000 38 slugs to the back of the head, and i for one think you should let the parents pyul the trigger if they wish too.
  • MAUREEN  •  Warwick, New York  •  3 months ago
    Amen..!
  • Conservative  •  3 months ago
    Where in the Constitution does it say that gay marriage is protected under the law? The answer... no where!
    • Lorie 3 months ago
      Where does it talk about marriage period. So you see everyone has equal protection under the law.
    • Me 3 months ago
      @ Conservative Where in the Constitution does it ban gay marriage?
  • MichaelW  •  Atlanta, Georgia  •  3 months ago
    strange that the minority of the people make the rules isnt it
    • Kate 3 months ago
      Not really.
  • Kate  •  3 months ago
    People bust out the Constitution and then tuck it away again whenever it's convenient for them. Conservatives use the Constitution to argue against mandated health insurance, but then ignore it when they want to take away the right to marry from individuals who are gay- both are arguments about rights, but when it comes to the rights of individuals of whom they do not approve, they ignore the Constitution's statements about rights. Liberals do the same thing, albeit under different circumstances. How convenient!
    • Martin 3 months ago
      A marriage license is issued by the state not the Federal Government, thus states should have the right to define what marrige is in that state, just like CA tried to do by putting it to a vote.
    • Kate 3 months ago
      That really makes no sense, given that our other rights ARE outlined in the Constitution, but for some reason marriage (gay marriage) should be voted on? Technically, it is a right they already have and therefore it is unnecessary to vote on it.
    • J 3 months ago
      we shouldn't leave civil rights issues up to a popular vote.
  • SAVAGESAXON  •  Fort Worth, Texas  •  3 months ago
    ...what did the gaylords do with that list of names of the people that voted the "right" way last time. many of them righteous Citizens were harassed, put out of business and even their children were doped up and raped. why do you Californians want to live under the oppression of such horrendous GAYLORDS. without the 2nd Admendment, all you Honorable Citizens have been disarmed, whipped, kosherized, tied up, baked, pounded, rear ended, duped, ripped apart, jellied, jammed, spread out, shoved into a corner, pushed against the wall, splattered on the floor, neutered, DEMwittedly prostrated on that gay j-w poop-deck. get the "Right" LAW changed back, and that will solve a hell of a lot of them anti-Christ, anti-White, anti-Commandments, anti-Familia, anti-America kosher j-w gayDUMB problems. at least make it a FAIR FIGHT. IR CON DIOS.
  • Frankie  •  3 months ago
    Well I know where I don't want to go -Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire, New York and the District of Columbia.Let's try to keep moral values in the other states...
  • rj  •  3 months ago
    The ninth circuit just sent this to the supreme court to once and for all end this attack on christianity. Civic unions give the abnormal equal rights under the law.....Marriage is a union of a man and a woman under God a christian value and has nothing to do with the constitution except that now it is infringement on christians in this country
  • Zak  •  3 months ago
    so the easiest way to get the goverment to actually listen to the will of the MAJORITY? In the states that have passed these laws all heterosexual couples would only have to file for divorce, and state that the reason they are getting divorced is because of outside influences encroaching on their religiously protected right. Once the states lose all that money from the marriage tax (except from the homosexual couples) they will be quick to go back on their steps...

    One other thing, I am totally for allowing homosexual couples to love and be united together as a couple, what I am not for is getting married to a woman (as i am a man) and being compared to a homosexual couple in any way. We can both be completely content with our significant other, with all of the same rights and regulations covering our relationships exactly the same way. What we can't have is two completely seperate groups being relegated to one title. would a conservative like to be lumped in the same pile as a liberal when we call them politicians? Would never happen...
  • orecka  •  Branson, Missouri  •  3 months ago
    Homosexuals always like to think of themselves as being such an artistic and creative lot. Funny how they hate normal people, yet want to be just like them and ape their sacred institutions. Here is a little help....instead of being "married", how about if you are "stuck together"?
  • Conservative  •  3 months ago
    Did anyone expect anything less from the 9th circuit court of appeals? The 3 judge panel is comprised of 2 liberals and 1 conservative...thus the 2 to 1 vote in favor of the gays. The libs didn't make a decision based on the law, they made it based on what BHO wants, the gay, lesbian, illegal alien, free ride folks vote!
  • SAVAGESAXON  •  Fort Worth, Texas  •  3 months ago
    ...now remember the past, what did the gaylords do with that list of names of the people that voted the "right" way last time. many of them righteous Citizens were harassed, put out of business and even their children were doped up and raped. why do you Californians want to live under the oppression of such horrendous GAYLORDS. without the 2nd Admendment, all you Honorable Citizens have been disarmed, whipped, kosherized, tied up, baked, pounded, rear ended, duped, ripped apart, jellied, jammed, spread out, shoved into a corner, pushed against the wall, splattered on the floor, neutered, DEMwittedly prostrated on that gay j-w poop-deck. get the "Right" LAW changed back, and that will solve a hell of a lot of them anti-Christ, anti-White, anti-Commandments, anti-Familia, anti-America kosher j-w gayDUMB problems. at least make it a FAIR FIGHT. IR CON DIOS.
  • Watchman on the Wall  •  Sacramento, California  •  3 months ago
    Isn't it strange that your vote may count then Judges take away your right?
  • Kate  •  3 months ago
    I am proud to be from Massachusetts, the first state to allow same-sex couples to marry. It was long overdue, but I am still proud all the same. I also applaud the other 5 states and DC to do the same. To the contrary, WE were the moral ones who upheld the right of all people, regardless of sexual orientation, the right to marry.
  • J  •  Farmingdale, Maine  •  3 months ago
    i cant believe they are giving people this freedom. it is our christian duty to make sure homosexuals don't have these rights anymore.
  • SANTA CLAWS  •  3 months ago
    CALI SUCKS
  • orecka  •  Branson, Missouri  •  3 months ago
    Along with other defined heterosexual words, I notice they also try to use the words "husband" and "wife", as if those terms belong to them. Who is which one this this week? "No, no! It's my turn!"
  • Conservative  •  Danville, Kentucky  •  3 months ago
    Prop 8 was struck down because the California 9th Circuit wants to force the issue to go to SCOTUS ---Holder/Obama has said he will not defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) although it is his job to argue FOR the laws of the U.S.

    The fact is, Prop 8 differs little from DOMA and, just like AZ's anti-immigration law mirrors federal immigration law, the Libs HATE when the feds are forced to follow the laws they don't like.

    Also, the Liberal (nutty) courts do not like citizen legislation---you will notice that every tme the CA citizens vote for something, the Libs take it straight to court to delay implementation of whatever they don't like. CA in general has no respect for the people even though they have a right to exercise their rights to recall/referendum/and initiative. Kentucky once allowed citizen legislation, but Frankfort repealed these rights to the detriment of all.