Same Sex Marriage

The LA Times reports on a plane for churches of all kinds to plant Yes on Prop 8 signs all at the same time in September.

The Federalist Society convened an on-line debate between legal scholars over same-sex marriage. It's a high-level and fascinating discussion. And paging Justice Scalia: there is a conservative case for same-sex marriage.

Writing in the LA Times, Jessica Garrison describes how school boards have become the latest battleground for endorsements in the campaigns for and against Prop 8, the California initiative to ban same sex marriage.

Those words appear on the screen at the end of this TV ad, a spot in which no voice is spoken. The advertisement does not mention Prop 8, the California ballot initiative to ban same-sex marriage, but it doesn't have to. The organization that put together the ad and the donors funding its broadcast are all opponents of Prop 8. The ad is indirect and effective, making a classic "golden rule" argument. A bride approaches the marriage altar but is stopped by a variety of forces from reaching it. When the groom tries to go to her, he's held back by the grooming party.

The one problem: this ad represents a bit of a dodge around legal and campaign finance rules. Dan Morains explains this in the Los Angeles Times.

On the financial front, the answer is yes, as out of state money pours into both the campaigns for an against Prop 8, the California ballot initiative to ban same-sex marriage. But so far, the initiative campaign has been low-key on both sides, with appeals targeted to the very narrow set of Californians who remain undecided.

Polling suggests that the final result in Prop 8 will be close. And momentum is with opponents of the initiative (that is, supporters of same-sex marriage rights). If Prop's 8 defeat continues to look more and more likely as the election approaches in California, social conservative, Christian groups and others on the right may be tempted to turn their defeat to their advantage by nationalizing the gay marriage issue. The triumph of same-sex marriage in California would be pitched as a threat.

Supporters of the initiative to ban same-sex marriage in California had lost twice in court last week. They had claimed that the new title added by Attorney General Jerry Brown, which says the initiative "eliminates" a constitutional right, was argumentative. Now, says a spokeswoman, they'll let the people decide.

A judge has ruled that Atty Gen. Jerry Brown's new title for Prop 8, the California initiative to write a ban on same-sex marriage into the state constitution, can stay. The title says the initiative "eliminates the right to marry." The judge's decision is a big victory for opponents of Prop 8. Proponents are appealing.

Supporters of Prop 8, the California ballot initiative to ban same sex marriage, have gone to court to reverse changes in the official title and summary. Their petition is available here.

After reading the briefs, I think the supporters have a strong case. The original title and summary, approved before the state supreme court decision legalizing same-sex marriage, read simply, "LIMIT ON MARRIAGE. CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Amends the California constitution to provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." After the court decision, the title now says, "ELIMINATES RIGHT OF SAME SEX COUPLES TO MARRY..." That's very, very argumentative. Whether there is such a right in the California constitution is the focus of the legal and political dispute that voters will decide in November.

Attorney General Jerry Brown has some justification for he change. The court identified a constitutional right to marry that includes same-sex couples. But the first title remains accurate, and the Prop 8 supporters should be able to put Brown on the defensive. The attorney general has publicly taken sides in the controversy. Your blogger thinks he's on the correct side, but in ballot initiative titles, the a.g. is supposed to accurately describe the measure, not argue the case. The outcome is important, as these titles do affect undecided voters.

The utility PG&E has given $250,000 to defeat Prop 8, the initiative to ban same-sex marriage in California. Expect more businesses to follow suit. Yes, it's dangerous for companies to take sides on a controversial social issues; consumer boycotts could follow. But I'm hearing from business executives who see the state's legalization of same-sex marriage as providing an advantage in recruiting and retaining workers--a tough endeavor, given California's lousy economics and high cost of living. A vote for Prop 8 could hurt recruitment and retention in a similar way.

As predicted, supporters of Prop 8, the California initiative to ban same sex marriage, will ask a court to order changes to a new title and summary. The new t-s reflects the state supreme court decision by saying that the initiative limits a right (albeit a judicially determined right found nowhere in the text). The new summary also says the state would lose tax revenues related to same-sex marriage.

Such litigation over title and summaries is common, but the interest in same sex marriage will bring more scrutiny to the process. One non-lawyer's opinion: the Prop 8 supporters have a decent chance of getting the summary changed with regards to the tax issues. They'll be able to argue, I suspect, that no one really knows the fiscal impact of this. Yes, banning same-sex marriage may cost us tax revenues, but they could argue that people and companies could leave the state if same-sex marriage remains legal.

I believe they'll have a tougher time convincing a judge to reverse the new language that the initiative eliminates a right. Prop 8 supporters may not like it, but the legal fact is that the supreme court identified a right to same-sex marriage in the state constitution.