Jump to content

Post-election events of Proposition 8 (2008): Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Undid revision 354023326 by AVBOT (talk)
Line 70: Line 70:
</ref> [[San Francisco]] filed a motion to and was granted intervenor status in the case, saying that their work in ''[[In re Marriage Cases]]'' and ''[[Strauss v. Horton]]'' provided them with "extensive evidence and proposed findings on [[strict scrutiny]] factors and factual rebuttals to long claimed justifications for marriage discrimination".<ref>{{citeweb|url=http://www.sfgov.org/site/city_attorney_page.asp?id=108390|title=San Francisco Moves to Intervene in Federal Challenge to Proposition 8|publisher=[[San Francisco]] City Attorney's Office|date=2009-07-23|accessdate=2009-07-23}}</ref>
</ref> [[San Francisco]] filed a motion to and was granted intervenor status in the case, saying that their work in ''[[In re Marriage Cases]]'' and ''[[Strauss v. Horton]]'' provided them with "extensive evidence and proposed findings on [[strict scrutiny]] factors and factual rebuttals to long claimed justifications for marriage discrimination".<ref>{{citeweb|url=http://www.sfgov.org/site/city_attorney_page.asp?id=108390|title=San Francisco Moves to Intervene in Federal Challenge to Proposition 8|publisher=[[San Francisco]] City Attorney's Office|date=2009-07-23|accessdate=2009-07-23}}</ref>


California Attorney General [[Jerry Brown]] backed the lawsuit, saying that Proposition 8 violates the U.S. Constitution and should be struck down.<ref>{{citeweb|url=http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-gay-marriage13-2009jun13,0,5786790.story|title=Jerry Brown again says Prop. 8 should be struck down|publisher=''[[Los Angeles Times]]''|author=Dolan, Mora and Williams, Carol J.|date=2009-06-13|accessdate=2009-06-18}}</ref> Governor [[Arnold Schwarzenegger]] took a more neutral path,<ref name="APtrial"/> saying that he supported the lawsuit because the Proposition 8 conflict asks "important constitutional questions that require and warrant judicial determination." Because this means that the Californian government will not defend the law in court,<ref>{{citeweb|url=http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/06/17/BA5A188J6C.DTL&type=politics|title=Governor backs federal review of Prop. 8|publisher=''[[San Francisco Chronicle]]''|author=Egelko, Bob|date=2009-06-17|accessdate=2009-06-18}}</ref> the proponents of Proposition 8's campaign were granted the right to intervene as defendants.<ref>{{Citeweb|url=http://cbs5.com/localwire/22.0.html?type=bcn&item=PROP-8-CHALLENGE-20-15|title=SF: CITY SEEKS TO JOIN FEDERAL LAWSUIT CHALLENGING SAME-SEX MARRIAGE BAN|publisher=[[CBS]]|date=2009-07-24|accessdate=2009-07-24}}</ref> The case was first heard on July 2, 2009, in the [[United States District Court for the Northern District of California]] in [[San Francisco]], Judge [[Vaughn R. Walker]] presiding.<ref>{{citeweb|url=http://www.ebar.com/news/article.php?sec=news&article=4003|title=Brown still fighting Prop 8|publisher=Bay Area Reporter|author=Laird, Cynthia|date=2009-06-18|accessdate=2009-06-23}}</ref>
California Attorney General [[Jerry Brown]] backed the lawsuit, saying that Proposition 8 violates the U.S. Constitution and should be struck down.<ref>{{citeweb|url=http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-gay-marriage13-2009jun13,0,5786790.story|title=Jerry Brown again says Prop. 8 should be struck down|publisher=''[[Los Angeles Times]]''|author=Dolan, Mora and Williams, Carol J.|date=2009-06-13|accessdate=2009-06-18}}</ref> Governor [[Arnold Schwarzenegger]] took a more neutral path,<ref name="APtrial"/> saying that he supported the lawsuit because the Proposition 8 conflict asks "important constitutional questions that require and warrant judicial determination." Because this means that the Californian government will not defend the law in court,<ref>{{citeweb|url=http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/06/17/BA5A188J6C.DTL&type=politics|title=Governor backs federal review of Prop. 8|publisher=''[[San Francisco Chronicle]]''|author=Egelko, Bob|date=2009-06-17|accessdate=2009-06-18}}</ref> the proponents of Proposition 8's campaign were granted the right to intervene as defendants.<ref>{{Citeweb|url=http://cbs5.com/localwire/22.0.html?type=bcn&item=PROP-8-CHALLENGE-20-15|title=SF: CITY SEEKS TO JOIN FEDERAL LAWSUIT CHALLENGING SAME-SEX MARRIAGE BAN|publisher=[[CBS]]|date=2009-07-24|accessdate=2009-07-24}}</ref> The case was first heard on July 2, 2009, in the [[United States District Court for the Northern District of California]] in [[San Francisco]], Judge [[Vaughn R. Walker]], himself a homosexual, presiding.<ref>{{citeweb|url=http://www.ebar.com/news/article.php?sec=news&article=4003|title=Brown still fighting Prop 8|publisher=Bay Area Reporter|author=Laird, Cynthia|date=2009-06-18|accessdate=2009-06-23}}</ref>


In August, Judge Walker heard further requests for intervenor status,<ref name="APtrial">{{citeweb|url=http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hVLXVV6bmG_wjIN5b_AzLQvPaKiwD9A674F83|title=Judge sets January trial date for Prop. 8 case|publisher=[[The Associated Press]]|author=Leff, Lisa|date=2009-08-19|accessdate=2009-08-19}}</ref> and ordered a trial set for January 2010, which is set to address questions as wide-ranging as whether being gay diminishes one's contribution to society, affects one's ability to raise children, impairs judgment, or constitutes a mental disorder.<ref>{{citeweb|url=http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/08/19/BA7T19AQ10.DTL&tsp=1|title=Judge sets January trial for Prop. 8 lawsuit|publisher=''[[San Francisco Chronicle]]''|author=Egelko, Bob|date=2009-08-19|accessdate=2009-08-19}}</ref>
In August, Judge Walker heard further requests for intervenor status,<ref name="APtrial">{{citeweb|url=http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hVLXVV6bmG_wjIN5b_AzLQvPaKiwD9A674F83|title=Judge sets January trial date for Prop. 8 case|publisher=[[The Associated Press]]|author=Leff, Lisa|date=2009-08-19|accessdate=2009-08-19}}</ref> and ordered a trial set for January 2010, which is set to address questions as wide-ranging as whether being gay diminishes one's contribution to society, affects one's ability to raise children, impairs judgment, or constitutes a mental disorder.<ref>{{citeweb|url=http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/08/19/BA7T19AQ10.DTL&tsp=1|title=Judge sets January trial for Prop. 8 lawsuit|publisher=''[[San Francisco Chronicle]]''|author=Egelko, Bob|date=2009-08-19|accessdate=2009-08-19}}</ref>

Revision as of 02:29, 5 April 2010

See also: California Proposition 8 (2008)

Proposition 8 was a ballot proposition and constitutional amendment passed in the November 2008, state elections. Due to the nature and controversy surrounding the initiative, several important post-election events occurred that sought to overturn the proposition through civil disobedience or through the judicial system, despite the voters of California voting down same sex marriage.

A constitutional amendment passed by the electorate takes effect the day after the election. On the evening of November 4 the "Yes on 8" campaign issued a statement by Ron Prentice, the chairman of ProtectMarriage.com, saying "The people of California stood up for traditional marriage and reclaimed this great institution."[1] The organizers of the "No on Prop 8" campaign issued a statement on November 6 saying "Tuesday’s vote was deeply disappointing to all who believe in equal treatment under the law."[2] The counties of Los Angeles, San Francisco, Yolo, Kern, Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo, Sonoma, San Diego, San Bernardino, Sacramento, and Tuolumne stopped issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples the day after the election.[3][4][5][6][7]

Protests

See also: November 15 protests and Protests against Proposition 8 supporters
Protesters against Proposition 8 demonstrate in front of the California State Capitol in Sacramento on November 9

Following the passage of Proposition 8, mass protests took place across the state. These included protests outside a temple of the LDS Church in Westwood, Los Angeles;[8] a march through Hollywood that blocked traffic and elicited police intervention;[9] and a candlelight vigil in front of the Sacramento Gay and Lesbian Center.[10]

On Sunday November 9 an estimated crowd of 4,000 people protested in front of the California State Capitol.[11] In San Francisco, thousands gathered in front of the City Hall to protest the proposition and to perform a candlelit vigil. Speakers who voiced their opinion in opposition of Proposition 8 included state senator Mark Leno and mayor Gavin Newsom.[12]

Outside California, a protest at the headquarters of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Salt Lake City, Utah[13] was addressed by local gay rights supporters including former Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson and three gay members of the Utah Legislature: Senator Scott McCoy and Representatives Christine Johnson and Jackie Biskupski.[14] On November 12, 2008, more than 10,000 protesters gathered outside the Manhattan New York Temple to protest the support of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for Proposition 8.[15] On November 15, 2008, tens of thousands of people in cities around the United States participated in rallies to protest the passage of Proposition 8 and to promote the expansion of civil marriage to same-sex couples throughout the nation.[16]

On November 7, 2008, a blogger revealed that Scott Eckern, then Artistic Director of California Musical Theatre, made a personal donation of $1,000 to the "Yes on 8" campaign.[17] All campaign contributions of $1,000 or more required a name, home and occupation be listed. On November 10, gay artists called for a boycott of California Musical Theatre.[18] On November 11, Eckern issued an apology on the online site Playbill that stated that a similar donation was made to a Human Rights organization that includes gay rights as one of its causes.[19] On November 12, Eckern resigned from California Musical Theatre. Executive producer of the CMT Richard Lewis stated that Eckern was not forced to resign but did so of his own accord.[20]

Richard Raddon, Director of the Los Angeles Film Festival, also resigned due to boycotts by the gay community.[21]

To protest the passage of Proposition 8, musical theatre composer Marc Shaiman wrote a satiric mini-musical called "Prop 8 — The Musical". The 3-minute video was distributed on the internet at FunnyOrDie.com. The cast includes Jack Black (who plays Jesus), Nicole Parker, Neil Patrick Harris, John C. Reilly, Allison Janney, Andy Richter, Maya Rudolph, Margaret Cho, Rashida Jones, Sarah Chalke, Jennifer Lewis, John Hill and other celebrities. It was directed by Adam Shankman. The video satirizes Christian churches that selectively pick and choose biblical doctrines to follow.[22] It received 1.2 million internet hits in its first day,[23][24] was nominated for the Webby Award category Comedy: Individual Short or Episode,[25] and won a GLAAD media award.[26]

Protests in California were marred by racial incidents. Due to their support of Proposition 8, reported as high as 70 percent, some African Americans attending events were allegedly subjected to racial epithets and felt threatened. California Assembly Speaker Karen Bass stated she was disturbed by the treatment of African Americans in the aftermath of the passage of the proposition. In reaction to the racial incidents, Evan Wolfson said, "In any fight, there will be people who say things they shouldn't say, but that shouldn't divert attention from what the vast majority are saying against this, that it's a terrible injustice."[27][28]

Controversies about campaign financing and donations

On November 13, 2008, Fred Karger of the group Californians Against Hate filed a complaint with the California Fair Political Practices Commission that campaign finance reports filed by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints under-reported its actual Proposition 8 campaign expenses as $2,078.97.[29][30] Karger charged that the Church's failure to report "non-monetary contributions" placed it in violation of California's Political Reform Act. Church spokesman Scott Trotter denied the charges, saying the church had "fully complied with the reporting requirements" and a "further report will be filed on or before [...the] due date, Jan. 30, 2009."[31]

In a report filed with the California Secretary of State's office January 30, 2009, the LDS Church reported its non-monetary expenditures as $189,903.58.[32] On January 31, the San Francisco Chronicle stated, "While the deadline for the report, which covers the period from July 1 to Dec. 31, is [February 2], many campaign contributions by major donors and independent committees must be reported within days after they're made." The article further stated that the executive director of the FPPC stated that the LDS church was still under investigation, and "In general, however, 'cases like these hinge over what had to be reported and when it had to be reported.' A late report covering disputed filings 'wouldn't remove the obligation to file on time' but would be considered by investigators."[33]

The Boston Herald reported on February 2, 2009:

While many church members had donated directly to the Yes on 8 campaign—some estimates of Mormon giving range as high as $20 million—the church itself had previously reported little direct campaign activity. But in the filing made Friday, the Mormon church reported thousands in travel expenses, such as airline tickets, hotel rooms and car rentals for the campaign. The church also reported $96,849.31 worth of 'compensated staff time'—hours that church employees spent working to pass the same-sex marriage ban.[34]

In a statement issued February 2, 2009, the LDS Church responded to "erroneous news reports", saying its subsequent disclosure was "in no way prompted by an investigation by the California Fair Political Practices Commission," that "We believe we have complied with California law," and that the report's filing date met the January 31, 2009 deadline.

The Church, like other organizations on both sides of the ballot issue, was required to publicly file these donations by the 31 January deadline. The Church has been filing required contribution reports throughout the campaign. Those earlier donations 'initially stated' were filed for specific time periods prior to this last reporting period, as required by law. Other groups are also filing their final contribution reports to meet the same deadline.[35]

On January 7, 2009, supporters of Proposition 8 filed a federal lawsuit to block public disclosure of their donations. Alleging threats against their lives as well as other forms of harassment, the lawsuit also requested a preliminary injunction that ordered the California Secretary of State to remove information about donations posted on its website. Opponents of Proposition 8 called it "hypocritical" that its supporters would refer to their support of the measure as the "will of the people" while seeking to overturn voter-approved campaign disclosure laws.[36] U.S. District Judge Morrison England, Jr. denied that request on January 29; he said that the public had the right to know about donors of political causes, that he did not agree that the plaintiffs had a probability of success in court, and that they had not proven they would suffer "irreparable injury" if he did not grant the preliminary injunction.[37]

Litigation

California Supreme Court cases

Protesters at the "Day of Decision" rally marched up Market Street in downtown San Francisco following the California Supreme Court ruling.
Pro and Anti-Proposition 8 protesters rally in front of the San Francisco City Hall on the day of the Supreme Court hearings
Main article: Strauss v. Horton

After the passage of Proposition 8, a number of lawsuits were filed against the state and state officials with the intent of overturning the measure and arguing that Proposition 8 should not have retroactive effect on existing same-sex marriages. On November 13, 2008, the California Supreme Court asked California Attorney General Jerry Brown for an opinion on whether the Court should accept these cases for review and whether the measure should be suspended while they decide the case. On November 19, the Court accepted three lawsuits challenging Proposition 8 but denied the requests to stay its enforcement.[38] The Court asked for final briefs by January 5, 2009. Oral arguments were held on March 5, 2009.

On Tuesday May 26 the court ruled that "The Amendment to the State Constitution referred to as Proposition 8 is valid and enforceable from the moment it was passed."[citation needed] The court also held that "Proposition 8 must be understood as creating a limited exception to the state equal protection clause."[39] Justice Moreno in his lone dissenting opinion, argued that such a change to the Constitution should only be implemented "by a constitutional revision to modify the equal protection clause to protect some, rather than all, similarly situated persons" and not by a simple majority vote.

The Court did rule that their decision cannot be applied to retroactively annul marriages that were transacted while the practice was legal in the state of California.[40] Proposition 8 has no retroactive effect. The California Supreme Court ruled unanimously on May 26, 2009, that the approximately 18,000 gay marriages that had occurred prior to Proposition 8's passage would still be valid and must continue to be recognized in the state, since the amendment does not state explicitly that it would nullify the gay marriages performed before it took effect.[40]

Later legislation clarified that same-sex couples who married out-of-state within the window of legality would also retain their legal marriage rights. The bill was signed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger on October 11, 2009.[41]

Federal challenges

Smelt v. United States of America

Immediately following the passage of Proposition 8, Arthur Smelt and Christopher Hammer filed suit in the Southern Division of the United States District Court for the Central District of California, in Orange County. In the case, Smelt v. United States of America, the plaintiffs argued that Proposition 8 and the Federal Defense of Marriage Act violated the Equal Protection Clause of the American constitution.[42] The United States Justice Department has filed a motion to dismiss the case because the "plaintiffs are married, and their challenge to the federal Defense of Marriage Act ("DOMA") poses a different set of questions."[43] On July 15, 2009, District Judge Carter dismissed the part of Smelt that challenged Proposition 8, finding that the plaintiffs, who are legally married in California, have no standing to challenge Proposition 8. The challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act, however, remains intact.[44] The remainder of the case was heard on August 3, 2009, in an Orange County district court.[45] The lawsuit was thrown out of court because the two men had accidentally filed suit against the federal government in a state court, a technicality which meant the suit must be re-filed.[46]

Perry v. Schwarzenegger

Main article: Perry v. Schwarzenegger

On the day of Strauss v. Horton's decision, the American Foundation for Equal Rights (AFER) filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California to challenge the validity of Proposition 8. Lambda Legal, the ACLU, and the National Center for Lesbian Rights have since announced their support for the lawsuit.[47] San Francisco filed a motion to and was granted intervenor status in the case, saying that their work in In re Marriage Cases and Strauss v. Horton provided them with "extensive evidence and proposed findings on strict scrutiny factors and factual rebuttals to long claimed justifications for marriage discrimination".[48]

California Attorney General Jerry Brown backed the lawsuit, saying that Proposition 8 violates the U.S. Constitution and should be struck down.[49] Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger took a more neutral path,[50] saying that he supported the lawsuit because the Proposition 8 conflict asks "important constitutional questions that require and warrant judicial determination." Because this means that the Californian government will not defend the law in court,[51] the proponents of Proposition 8's campaign were granted the right to intervene as defendants.[52] The case was first heard on July 2, 2009, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in San Francisco, Judge Vaughn R. Walker, himself a homosexual, presiding.[53]

In August, Judge Walker heard further requests for intervenor status,[50] and ordered a trial set for January 2010, which is set to address questions as wide-ranging as whether being gay diminishes one's contribution to society, affects one's ability to raise children, impairs judgment, or constitutes a mental disorder.[54]

Ballot repeal effort

On April 30, 2009, Yes! on Equality submitted a ballot initiative dubbed "California Marriage Equality Act" to the Attorney General's office, requesting a title and summary. The text of the ballot would repeal Article I; Section 7.5 of the Californian Constitution as well as clarifying that no school curriculum will be changed and no clergy will be forced to perform any "service or duty incongruent with their faith". Yes! on Equality had until August 17, 2009, to gather 694,354 signatures in order to qualify for the June 2010 ballot,[55][56] though it appears they did not have enough signatures. They have filed the petition for initiative for the November 2010 ballot and now have until April 5th, 2010 to obtain enough signatures. The campaign said it had decided that it would be a better strategy to wait and have a repeal measure on the November 2010 ballot. Brendan Ross, a spokesman for "Yes! on Equality", told a reporter that they are "...no longer gathering signatures for the first initiative, but will still use those pages of signatures as contacts for when it's time to continue gathering signatures."[57]

Several LGBT groups of color (including API Equality-LA, HONOR PAC, and the Jordan/Rustin Coalition) published a statement "Prepare to Prevail," in which they argue that the ballot repeal effort should be delayed until 2012.[58]

References

  1. ^ "Statement on Proposition 8 Passing by Ron Prentice, Chairman of ProtectMarriage.com". ProtectMarriage.com. November 4, 2008. Retrieved 2008-11-14.
  2. ^ "Final Statement from No on Prop 8 Campaign". No On 8, Equality for All. November 6, 2008. Retrieved 2008-11-06.
  3. ^ "Same-Sex Couple Tries To Marry, Turned Away". KCRA.com. 2008-11-05. Retrieved 2008-11-05.
  4. ^ Emanuella Grinberg (2008-11-05). "Los Angeles stops issuing marriage licenses to gay couples". CNN. Retrieved 2009-03-29.
  5. ^ Jenny Shearer (2008-11-05). "County clerk: No more marriage licenses will be issued to same-sex couples". Retrieved 2009-03-29. {{cite news}}: Text "publisher: Bakersfield Californian" ignored (help)[dead link‍]
  6. ^ Lisa Leff (2008-11-05). "California voters approve gay-marriage ban". Associated Press.[dead link‍]
  7. ^ Carina Corral (2008-11-10). "Same-sex marriage licenses no longer being issued on Central Coast". MSNBC.[dead link‍]
  8. ^ Garrison, Jessica and Lin, Joanne (2008-11-06). "Prop. 8 protesters target Mormon temple in Westwood". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 2008-11-06.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  9. ^ "Gay Marriage Ban Protests In LA". Sky News. 2008-11-06. Retrieved 2008-11-06.
  10. ^ Garza, Samantha (2008-11-06). "Sacramento rally protests Proposition 8". The Sacramento Bee. Retrieved 2008-11-06.
  11. ^ "Protests Against Gay-Marriage Ban Continue". KCRA.com. Retrieved 2008-11-17.
  12. ^ "Thousands Attend Vigil Protesting Passage Of Prop. 8". KTVU. 2008-11-06. Retrieved 2008-11-06.
  13. ^ Brent Hunsaker and Kerry Kinsey (2008-11-07). "Same-sex marriage protest held near LDS Temple Square". abc4.com. Retrieved 2009-03-20.
  14. ^ Jared Page and Clayton Norlen (2008-11-08). "Prop. 8 protest draws thousands in Salt Lake City". The Deseret News. Retrieved 2008-11-11.
  15. ^ New Yorkers Protest Gay Marriage Ban Outside Mormon Church
  16. ^ McKINLEY, JESSE (November 15, 2008). "Across U.S., Big Rallies for Same-Sex Marriage".
  17. ^ "Report: Musical Theatre board cancels emergency meeting over Prop. 8 support". American City Business Journals. Retrieved 2008-11-11.
  18. ^ "Prop. 8 gift gets theater's leader in a ruckus". sacbe.com. Retrieved 2008-11-11.
  19. ^ "Prop. 8 repercussions hit Sacramento theater". Los Angeles times. Retrieved 2008-11-11.
  20. ^ Crowder, Marcus (2008-11-13). "Theater exec Eckern, caught in Prop. 8 flap, resigns". The Sacramento Bee.
  21. ^ "L.A. Film Festival director Richard Raddon resigns". Los Angeles Times. 2008-11-25.
  22. ^ "Gay marriage a gift to California’s economy", Los Angeles Times, LATimes.com, June 2, 2008
  23. ^ Itzkoff, Dave. "Marc Shaiman on 'Prop 8 — The Musical'", The New York Times, December 4, 2008
  24. ^ "Star-studded Web video protests Prop 8 – Spoof musical's blockbuster cast includes Jack Black as Jesus", Associated Press, MSN.com, December 4, 2008
  25. ^ Serpe, Gina (2009-04-24). "Paris, Puppies, Prop 8 Vie for Webby Awards". E!. Retrieved 2009-04-17.
  26. ^ "Shaiman's 'PROP 8-THE MUSICAL' Wins GLAAD Award Honors". Broadway World. 2009-04-21. Retrieved 2009-04-25.
  27. ^ Stateman, Alison (2008-11-15). "What Happens If You're on Gay Rights' 'Enemies List'". Time.com. Time Inc. Retrieved 2009-07-19. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  28. ^ Rojas, Aurelio (2009-07-18). "Assembly Speaker Bass assails anger directed at blacks after Prop. 8 vote". The Sacramento Bee. Retrieved 2009-07-19. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  29. ^ "LDS Church donates to pro-Prop. 8 group". Deseret News. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. 2008-10-29. Retrieved 2009-02-07.
  30. ^ McKinley, Jesse (2008-11-25). "Inquiry Set on Mormon Aid for California Marriage Vote". The New York Times. Retrieved 2008-11-26.
  31. ^ "Prop 8 foes file complaint against LDS". Deseret News. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. 2008-11-14. Retrieved 2009-02-07.
  32. ^ The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (2009-01-30). "Campaign Finance Summary Information". California Secretary of State. Retrieved 2009-02-07.
  33. ^ Wildermuth, John (2009-01-31). "Mormon church reports $190,000 Prop. 8 expenses". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved 04-03-2009. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  34. ^ "Mormon church reveals deeper involvement in California's Proposition 8". Boston Herald. 2 February 2009. Retrieved 2009-02-08.[dead link‍]
  35. ^ "Church Clarifies Proposition 8 Filing, Corrects Erroneous News Reports". LDS Church. 2 February 2009. Retrieved 2009-02-04.
  36. ^ "Calif.'s Prop. 8 Supporters Want Donors Anonymous". cbs5.com. 2009-01-09. Retrieved 2009-03-28.
  37. ^ Lawrence, Steve (2009-01-29). "Judge: Anti-gay marriage donors must be public". Associated Press. Retrieved 2009-01-29.
  38. ^ "California Supreme Court Takes Action on Proposition 8" (PDF). Judicial Council of California. 2008-11-19. Retrieved 2008-11-19.
  39. ^ Ruling in Strauss, et al. v. Horton and related cases, nos. S168047, S168066, S168078, California Supreme Court, May 26, 2009
  40. ^ a b George, Ronald M. (2009-05-26). "Strauss v. Horton" (PDF). California Supreme Court. Retrieved 2009-05-26.
  41. ^ Robertson, Kathy (2009-10-12). "California to recognize some out-of-state gay marriages". Sacramento Biz Journal. Retrieved 2009-10-12.
  42. ^ Elias, Paul (2009-05-28). "New gay marriage court battle highlights old one". San Jose Mercury News. Retrieved 2009-06-01. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  43. ^ Deutsch, Linda (2009-06-12). "DOJ moves to dismiss first fed gay marriage case". Associated Press. Retrieved 2009-06-12.
  44. ^ "Order in Smelt v USA" (PDF). Retrieved 2009-07-18.
  45. ^ Egelko, Bob (2009-06-23). "Gay couple's weapon in lawsuit: Obama's words". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved 2009-06-23. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  46. ^ "US judge nixes suit that split Obama. gays". Associated Press. 2009-08-24. Retrieved 2009-08-24.
  47. ^ "Gay Groups Back Federal Challenge to Marriage Ban". ABC News. 2009-06-29. Retrieved 2009-06-26.
  48. ^ "San Francisco Moves to Intervene in Federal Challenge to Proposition 8". San Francisco City Attorney's Office. 2009-07-23. Retrieved 2009-07-23.
  49. ^ Dolan, Mora and Williams, Carol J. (2009-06-13). "Jerry Brown again says Prop. 8 should be struck down". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 2009-06-18. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  50. ^ a b Leff, Lisa (2009-08-19). "Judge sets January trial date for Prop. 8 case". The Associated Press. Retrieved 2009-08-19.
  51. ^ Egelko, Bob (2009-06-17). "Governor backs federal review of Prop. 8". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved 2009-06-18. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  52. ^ "SF: CITY SEEKS TO JOIN FEDERAL LAWSUIT CHALLENGING SAME-SEX MARRIAGE BAN". CBS. 2009-07-24. Retrieved 2009-07-24.
  53. ^ Laird, Cynthia (2009-06-18). "Brown still fighting Prop 8". Bay Area Reporter. Retrieved 2009-06-23.
  54. ^ Egelko, Bob (2009-08-19). "Judge sets January trial for Prop. 8 lawsuit". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved 2009-08-19. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  55. ^ "2009 Ballot Measure Update". California Secretary of State. Retrieved 2009-06-18.
  56. ^ "California Marriage Equality Act" (PDF). California Secretary of State. 2009-05-30. Retrieved 2009-06-18.
  57. ^ On Top Magazine, "Calif. Campaign to Restore Gay Marriage Alters Course", July 2009
  58. ^ Garofoli, Joe (2009-07-17). "Coalition of LGBT groups: Next year too soon for gay marriage vote in CA". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved 2009-07-17.

Template:Wikinewspar2

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Post-election_events_of_Proposition_8_(2008)&oldid=354025371"