Prop. 8

  • February 20, 2012

    by Jeremy Leaming

    While some lawmakers and politicians are working to end a few of the nation’s inequalities, like the one centering on the right of gays and lesbians to wed, others are keeping up the ignoble work of trying to hobble or defeat efforts to advance equality.

    For example, in many of the states where marriage equality is advancing, special interest groups have mounted, or in the midst of doing so, campaigns to ensure that government recognition of marriage belongs exclusively to men and women.

    After Washington Gov. Chris Gregoire enacted marriage equality legislation, social conservatives promised to gather enough signatures to place the newly gained civil liberty before the voters. N.J. Gov. Chris Christie has endorsed placing civil liberties before the voters when he vetoed a bill allowing lesbians and gays to wed. (Newark, N.J. Mayor Cory Booker took issue with Christie’s tactic, saying equal rights should never be placed before the whims of the majority.)

    Religious right groups are also promising to topple the effort by Maryland to allow same-sex marriage. The Maryland Marriage Alliance, which calls itself a an “interfaith coalition dedicated” to keeping marriage an exclusive institution, has promised to launch a petition movement to place the law before voters, provided it passes the Maryland Senate and is signed by Gov. Martin O’Malley, both highly likely. The Maryland Senate passed a similar measure last year, and O’Malley (pictured) has said he would sign the new measure. The governor has also upped his involvement this time around – he’s sponsoring the equality legislation that is moving through the legislature.

    Following the approval last week by the Md. House of Delegates, O’Malley applauded the outcome, saying the chamber had “voted for human dignity.”

    The marriage alliance, a gathering of primarily evangelical Christian groups, issued a press statement decrying the House’s vote as undermining the exclusive definition of marriage and noting, “thankfully,” that the state “allows for a referendum process by a people’s vote, and we are committed, if needed, to bring this issue to the vote of the people of Maryland.”

    Like the law enacted last year in New York, the Maryland marriage equality measure includes a provision granting an exemption for houses of worship to refuse to marry lesbians and gays. The Maryland Senate is expected, The Washington Post reports, to promptly take up the equality bill. The newspaper says the senate’s Judicial Proceedings Committee and the full chamber “quickly could approve the bill” with the possibility of sending it to O’Malley by week’s end. The state is moving quickly to become the eighth one to allow lesbians and gays to wed, joining Washington, New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Iowa. The District of Columbia also recognizes same-sex marriage.

  • January 11, 2010
    Hours before the start of the San Francisco trial over the constitutionality of Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage in California, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a temporary stay of the trial judge's order to show the trial on a delayed basis on YouTube. The high court's order in Hollingsworth v. Perry is in effect until Wednesday to allow the justices "further consideration" of it.

    In a dissent to the temporary stay, Justice Stephen Breyer wrote that the supporters of banning Internet coverage of the trial had not shown a "likelihood of ‘irreparable harm.'" Last week U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker, appointed to the bench by President George H.W. Bush, ruled that the trial could be recorded for public viewing on a delayed basis on YouTube. Supporters of Prop. 8 have argued that the showing of the trial would result in their witnesses being harassed. In a column for today's New York Times, former attorney general Edwin Meese accused Judge Walker of issuing a series of pre-trial orders "that have the effect of putting the sponsors of Proposition 8, and the people who voted for it, on trial." 

    The lawsuit was lodged on behalf of gay couples by two frequently headline-grabbing litigators, Ted Olson and David Boies. The two high-profile practitioners have also represented opposing sides at the Supreme Court, such as during Bush v. Gore, when Olson was counsel for George W. Bush and Boies represented Al Gore. In a column for Newsweek, Olson, argues the "conservative case for gay marriage," writing, "Many of my fellow conservatives have an almost knee-jerk hostility toward gay marriage. This does not make sense, because same-sex unions promote the values conservatives prize."

    In a post for change.org, Michael A. Jones argues the "constitutional case for gay marriage," maintaining that the nation's "founding documents," the Constitution and Declaration of Independence support, same-sex marriage.