California Proposition 8, Same-Sex Marriage Ban Initiative (2008)

California Proposition 8
Election date November 4, 2008
Topic Marriage and family
Status a Approved
Type Constitutional amendment	Origin Citizens

California Proposition 8, the Same-Sex Marriage Ban Initiative, was on the ballot as an initiated constitutional amendment in California on November 4, 2008. It was approved.

A "yes" vote supported this constitutional amendment to define marriage as between one man and one woman, thus reversing a state judicial ruling that legalized same-sex marriage in California.

A "no" vote opposed this constitutional amendment to define marriage as between one man and one woman, thus maintaining a state judicial ruling that legalized same-sex marriage in California.

Overview

What did Proposition 8 change?

Proposition 8 added language to the California Constitution that defined marriage as between one man and one woman. As the California Supreme Court ruled that same-sex marriage was legal in California on May 15, 2008, Proposition 8 had the effect of reversing the court's ruling and banning same-sex marriage. In 2009, the California Supreme Court ruled that Proposition 8 "carved out a limited [or 'narrow'] exception to the state equal protection clause" and prohibited same-sex marriage under the California Constitution.

When was Proposition 8 overturned?

Proposition 8 was upheld under state constitutional law but not federal constitutional law. On August 4, 2010, U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker ruled that Proposition 8 violated the U.S. Constitution. However, the decision was stayed on appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and U.S. Supreme Court. The Ninth Circuit upheld the district court's ruling to overturn Proposition 8 on February 7, 2012. The U.S. Supreme Court denied an appeal on June 26, 2013, and the Ninth Circuit permitted same-sex marriages beginning on June 28, 2013.

Aftermath

Strauss v. Horton (State)

On May 26, 2009, the California Supreme Court ruled that Proposition 8 was constitutional but that same-sex marriages performed before the constitutional amendment went into effect were valid. The court's opinion stated that "by incorporating into the California Constitution a specific provision that expressly restricts the designation of “marriage” to the union of a man and a woman, Proposition 8 must be understood as creating a limited exception to the state equal protection clause."

Hollingsworth v. Perry (Federal)

On August 4, 2010, U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker ruled that Proposition 8 violated the U.S. Constitution. However, the decision was stayed on appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and U.S. Supreme Court. The Ninth Circuit upheld the district court's ruling to overturn Proposition 8 on February 7, 2012. The U.S. Supreme Court denied an appeal on June 26, 2013, and the Ninth Circuit permitted same-sex marriages beginning on June 28, 2013.

The U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the case on the grounds that the defendants, who were the campaign's sponsors, did not have legal standing.

Election results

California Proposition 8
Result		Votes	Percentage
Yes		7,001,084	52.24%
No		6,401,482	47.76%

Results are officially certified.

Source

Text of measure

Ballot title

The ballot title for Proposition 8 was as follows:

“

Eliminates Right of Same-sex Couples to Marry. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.

”

Ballot summary

The ballot summary for this measure was:

“

• Changes the California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in California. • Provides that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

”

Full Text

The full text of this measure is available here.

Fiscal impact statement

The fiscal impact statement was as follows:

“

• Over the next few years, potential revenue loss, mainly from sales taxes, totaling in the several tens of millions of dollars, to state and local governments. • In the long run, likely little fiscal impact on state and local governments.

”

Constitutional changes

The ballot measure added the following underlined language to Article I of the California Constitution:

Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

Support

Protect Marriage, also known as Yes on 8, led the campaign in support of Proposition 8.

Supporters

Officials

• U.S. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), presidential candidate in 2008
• Asm. Doug LaMalfa (R)

Organizations

• American Family Association
• California Catholic Conference of Bishops
• California Family Council
• Concerned Women for America
• Focus on the Family
• Knights of Columbus
• National Organization for Marriage
• The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints
• Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America
• U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops

Individuals

• Alan Ashton
• Claire Reiss
• Dr. John Templeton, Jr.

Arguments

The following supporting arguments were presented in the official voter guide:

“ Proposition 8 is simple and straightforward. It contains the same 14 words that were previously approved in 2000 by over 61% of California voters: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” Because four activist judges in San Francisco wrongly overturned the people’s vote, we need to pass this measure as a constitutional amendment to RESTORE THE DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE as a man and a woman. Proposition 8 is about preserving marriage; it’s not an attack on the gay lifestyle. Proposition 8 doesn’t take away any rights or benefi ts of gay or lesbian domestic partnerships. Under California law, “domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections, and benefi ts” as married spouses. (Family Code § 297.5.) There are NO exceptions. Proposition 8 WILL NOT change this. YES on Proposition 8 does three simple things: It restores the definition of marriage to what the vast majority of California voters already approved and human history has understood marriage to be. It overturns the outrageous decision of four activist Supreme Court judges who ignored the will of the people. It protects our children from being taught in public schools that “same-sex marriage” is the same as traditional marriage. Proposition 8 protects marriage as an essential institution of society. While death, divorce, or other circumstances may prevent the ideal, the best situation for a child is to be raised by a married mother and father. The narrow decision of the California Supreme Court isn’t just about “live and let live.” State law may require teachers to instruct children as young as kindergarteners about marriage. (Education Code § 51890.) If the gay marriage ruling is not overturned, TEACHERS COULD BE REQUIRED to teach young children there is no difference between gay marriage and traditional marriage. We should not accept a court decision that may result in public schools teaching our kids that gay marriage is okay. That is an issue for parents to discuss with their children according to their own values and beliefs. It shouldn’t be forced on us against our will. Some will try to tell you that Proposition 8 takes away legal rights of gay domestic partnerships. That is false. Proposition 8 DOES NOT take away any of those rights and does not interfere with gays living the lifestyle they choose. However, while gays have the right to their private lives, they do not have the right to redefine marriage for everyone else. CALIFORNIANS HAVE NEVER VOTED FOR SAME-SEX MARRIAGE. If gay activists want to legalize gay marriage, they should put it on the ballot. Instead, they have gone behind the backs of voters and convinced four activist judges in San Francisco to redefine marriage for the rest of society. That is the wrong approach. Voting YES on Proposition 8 RESTORES the definition of marriage that was approved by over 61% of voters. Voting YES overturns the decision of four activist judges. Voting YES protects our children. Please vote YES on Proposition 8 to RESTORE the meaning of marriage. ”

Opposition

Opponents

Officials

• U.S. Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), presidential candidate in 2008

Parties

• California Democratic Party

Organizations

• ACLU of Northern California
• California Teachers Association
• California SEIU
• Equality California
• Human Rights Campaign

Individuals

• William Resnick

Arguments

The following opposing arguments were presented in the official voter guide:

“ OUR CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION—the law of our land—SHOULD GUARANTEE THE SAME FREEDOMS AND RIGHTS TO EVERYONE—NO ONE group SHOULD be singled out to BE TREATED DIFFERENTLY. In fact, our nation was founded on the principle that all people should be treated equally. EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW IS THE FOUNDATION OF AMERICAN SOCIETY. That’s what this election is about—equality, freedom, and fairness, for all. Marriage is the institution that conveys dignity and respect to the lifetime commitment of any couple. PROPOSITION 8 WOULD DENY LESBIAN AND GAY COUPLES that same DIGNITY AND RESPECT. That’s why Proposition 8 is wrong for California. Regardless of how you feel about this issue, the freedom to marry is fundamental to our society, just like the freedoms of religion and speech. PROPOSITION 8 MANDATES ONE SET OF RULES FOR GAY AND LESBIAN COUPLES AND ANOTHER SET FOR EVERYONE ELSE. That’s just not fair. OUR LAWS SHOULD TREAT EVERYONE EQUALLY. In fact, the government has no business telling people who can and cannot get married. Just like government has no business telling us what to read, watch on TV, or do in our private lives. We don’t need Prop. 8; WE DON’T NEED MORE GOVERNMENT IN OUR LIVES. REGARDLESS OF HOW ANYONE FEELS ABOUT MARRIAGE FOR GAY AND LESBIAN COUPLES, PEOPLE SHOULD NOT BE SINGLED OUT FOR UNFAIR TREATMENT UNDER THE LAWS OF OUR STATE. Those committed and loving couples who want to accept the responsibility that comes with marriage should be treated like everyone else. DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIPS ARE NOT MARRIAGE. When you’re married and your spouse is sick or hurt, there is no confusion: you get into the ambulance or hospital room with no questions asked. IN EVERYDAY LIFE, AND ESPECIALLY IN EMERGENCY SITUATIONS, DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIPS ARE SIMPLY NOT ENOUGH. Only marriage provides the certainty and the security that people know they can count on in their times of greatest need. EQUALITY UNDER THE LAW IS A FUNDAMENTAL CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEE. Prop. 8 separates one group of Californians from another and excludes them from enjoying the same rights as other loving couples. Forty-six years ago I married my college sweetheart, Julia. We raised three children—two boys and one girl. The boys are married, with children of their own. Our daughter, Liz, a lesbian, can now also be married—if she so chooses. All we have ever wanted for our daughter is that she be treated with the same dignity and respect as her brothers—with the same freedoms and responsibilities as every other Californian. My wife and I never treated our children differently, we never loved them any differently, and now the law doesn’t treat them differently, either. Each of our children now has the same rights as the others, to choose the person to love, commit to, and to marry. Don’t take away the equality, freedom, and fairness that everyone in California—straight, gay, or lesbian—deserves. Please join us in voting NO on Prop. 8. ”

Background

Same-sex marriage in California before Proposition 8

In 1977, the state adopted a statute that defined marriage as a "personal relation arising out of a civil contract between a man and a woman." In 2000, voters approved Proposition 22, which stated that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

In 2004, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom (D) performed same-sex marriages in San Francisco, which were annulled in court. The California Supreme Court ruled that same-sex marriage was legal under the California Constitution on May 15, 2008.

Related measures

Many historical marriage and family-related ballot measures regard the definition of legal marriage. The debate often revolved around whether marriage should be legally defined as the “union of one male and one female” or the “union of two persons [regardless of sex].” Voters chose to define marriage as between “one male and one female” in the following 30 states. The first constitutional prohibition was in 1998, and the latest one occurred in May 2012. All bans on same-sex marriage were overturned in the 2015 United States Supreme Court case Obergefell v. Hodges.

• 1998: Alaska
• 2000: Nebraska
• 2002: Nevada
• 2004: Arkansas
• 2004: Georgia
• 2004: Kentucky
• 2004: Louisiana
• 2004: Michigan
• 2004: Mississippi
• 2004: Missouri
• 2004: Montana
• 2004: North Dakota
• 2004: Ohio
• 2004: Oklahoma
• 2004: Oregon
• 2004: Utah
• 2005: Kansas
• 2005: Texas
• 2006: Alabama
• 2006: Colorado
• 2006: Idaho
• 2006: South Carolina
• 2006: South Dakota
• 2006: Tennessee
• 2006: Virginia
• 2006: Wisconsin
• 2008: Arizona
• 2008: California
• 2008: Florida
• 2012: North Carolina

Polls

See also Polls, 2008 ballot measures.

Month of Poll	Polling company	In Favor	Opposed	Undecided
July 2008	Field	42%	51%	7%
August 2008	PPIC	40%	54%	6%
Sept. 2008	Field	38%	55%	7%
Sept. 2008	SurveyUSA	44%	49%	7%
Sept. 2008	PPIC	41%	55%	4%
Oct 4-5, 2008	CBS News/SurveyUSA	47%	42%	11%
Oct 15-16, 2008	SurveyUSA	48%	45%	7%
October 12-19	PPIC	44%	52%	6%
October 18-28	Field	44%	49%	7%
Nov. 1-2	SurveyUSA	47 percent	50 percent	3 percent
Jan. 15-22	Public Policy Institute of California	41 percent	53 percent	6 percent

PPIC post-election poll

The Public Policy Institute of California released a poll in December 2008 that surveyed 2,003 voters brtween November 5–16 on Proposition 8. Of the sample polled, the following were how various groups voted:

• 85% of voters identifying themselves as evangelical or born-again Christian voted "Yes."
• 42% of voters identifying as Christians but not evangelicals voted "Yes"
• 77% of Republicans voted "Yes."
• 65% of Democrats voted "No."
• 85% of voters who also voted for John McCain voted "Yes."
• 30% of voters who also voted for Barack Obama voted "Yes."
• 61% of voters identifying as Latino voted "Yes."
• 62% of those without a college degree voted "Yes."

Path to the ballot

See also: Laws governing the initiative process in California

In California, the number of signatures required for an initiated constitutional amendment is equal to 8 percent of the votes cast at the preceding gubernatorial election. For initiated amendments filed in 2008, at least 694,354 valid signatures were required.

See also

2008 Measures

• 2008 Measures
• LGBTQ issues on the ballot
• Marriage and family on the ballot
• 2008 legislative sessions

California

• California ballot measures
• California ballot measure laws

News and analysis

• Ballot measure lawsuits
• Ballot measure readability
• Ballot measure polls

External links

• November 4, 2008, General Election Voter Guide