PROP 8 on The Probe!!

Hi & good day to everyone. The urbanised environment exposes the people to the negative influences of modern society. As results, the people power of reasoning often gives rise to society tension. Through out disagreements are usually centred around mundane issues like same-sex marriages which is currently the hot topic to be discuss. Today, the post will highlight certain perception, opinion or the story-related regarding the Proposition 8 (Prop 8) of California. The main frame of the issue is to gain the equality rights of same-sex marriage & constitutional amendment of California.

Proposition 8 is California state ballot that would amend the state constitution, to restrict the definition of marriage to “only” a union between a man & a woman, overturning the recent California Supreme Court decision that had recognised same-sex marriage in California as a fundamental right. The Official ballot title language for Proposition 8 was “eliminates right of same-sex couples to marry” or in other meaning is “only marriage between a man & a woman is valid @ recognized in California”

After The Obama won the election, the result showed uncertified. With the presence report, the vote was 52.5% in favor of proposition 8 & 47.5% against with the difference of 504,000 votes. The organizer “No on Prop 8”campaign expressed discourage & admitted the defeat as his claim "Tuesday’s vote was deeply disappointing to all who believe in equal treatment under the law". A little bit about the campaign. The campaign for & against the Prop 8 raised $35.8 million & $37.8 million, respectively, becoming the highest funded campaign on any state ballot except the presidential contest. The Protectmarriage.com sponsored the initiatives & argued due to failure to amend the constitution would requires certain changes to school curriculum & threaten Church benefits. On November 5 2008, 3 cases were filed.

History of Marriage in California

1850 - 1977 : Gender-Neutral Statutory Language

In 1850, California's marriage statutes used gender-neutral language, without reference to "man" or "woman," in providing that marriage is a personal relation arising out of a civil contract to which the consent of the parties capable of making the contract is necessary. While California did not explicitly define marriage as being between a man and a woman, court decisions and some statutes dating from both statehood and the 1872 codification of the civil law assumed as much. In 1948, the California Supreme Court recognized marriage as a fundamental right when it became the first state court in the country to strike down a law prohibiting interracial marriage.

1977 - 2008 : Opposite Sex marriage

In 1977, the legislature amended Civil Code section 4100 (predecessor to what is now codified at Family Code section 300) to read that marriage is "a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between a man and a woman". In 2007, the legislature commented that the gender-specific description of marriage "specifically discriminated in favor of heterosexual couples and discriminated against, and continues to discriminate against, same-sex couples." In 2000, voters passed ballot initiative Proposition 22 with 61% of the vote, which added a section to the California Family Code to formally define marriage in California as a union between a man and a woman

2004 - 2007 : Attempts to regain recognition for same-sex marriage

In 2004, a number of developments arose in the wake of Mayor Gavin newsome's decision to authorize the issuance of marriage licenses to same sex couples by the city & county of san francisco. The 3,995 marriages were annuled San Francisco began a legal challenge that was consolidated with other cases as in re marriage cases by the California Supreme Court, but . In 2005 the California state legislature passed the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act which would have recognized same-sex marriage in California. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act. The Act marked the first time that a state legislature had approved a bill authorizing same-sex marriage without a court order

2005-2008 : Initiatives to forbid recognition of same-sex marriage in the state constitution

From 2005 to 2008, opponents of same-sex marriages introduced several attempts to place a constitutional amendment before voters that would prohibit recognition of same-sex marriages—and in some cases, domestic partnerships as well. On April 27, 2005, ProtectMarriage.com announced that it will work to place a constitutional amendment on the June 2006 ballot to define marriage as an institution between a man and a woman. n December 2005, ProtectMarriage.com failed to submit enough signatures to place a constitutional marriage amendment on the ballot. ProtectMarriage.com announced it had fallen short of the 600,000 signatures required to place the amendment on the June 2006 ballot, the group collected roughly 250,000 signatures.

2008 : California recognizes same sex marriage

On May 15, 2008 the California Supreme Court , by a vote of 4–3, ruled that the statute enacted by Proposition 22 and other statutes that limit marriage to a relationship between a man and a woman violated the equal protection clause of the California Constitution. It also held that individuals of the same sex have the right to marry under the California Constitution. On June 4, 2008, the California Supreme Court denied a petition to stay its In re Marriage Cases order pending the upcoming vote on Proposition 8. As of June 17, 2008, marriages between individuals of the same sex were considered valid and recognized in the state of California. A UCLA study estimated that 18,000 same-sex couples married between then and early November, 2008

Culture Of Influences

A survey from August 18 to September 26, 2008 found 57% of Asian-Americans were likely to vote in the California election opposed to Proposition 8, 32% in favor, and 11% undecided. Steve Smith, manager of the statewide campaign opposing Proposition 8, explained the results as a matter of Asian-American sensitivity to unequal government treatment.African American voters played a crucial role in the outcome. An exit poll of California voters showed that black voters sided in favor of the measure by margins of more than 2 to 1. Not only was the black vote weighted heavily in favor of Proposition 8, but black turnout & spurred by Barack Obama's campaign for president was unusually large, making up roughly 10% of the voters.

The Field Poll released on October 31 indicated that, in the following categories, more people were opposed to Proposition 8 than in support of it: precinct voters, registered Democrats, nonpartisan voters, people who preferred Obama as a presidential choice, coastal inhabitants, people who identified as moderate or liberal, men, women, people under 65, Whites, Latinos, Asians, people who had some post-secondary education, college graduates, Catholics, non-Christians, people not affiliated with a religion, and those personally familiar with gays and lesbians. 73% of pollees who chose Barack Obama as their preferred President were against Proposition 8. Overall, 49% of the pollees were against the proposition, 44% were for it, and 7% were undecided.

Conclusion

As conclusion, mass protests to look further the legality of Same-Sex Marriage & Prop 8 that should not be amend at any cost. I’m not sure whether the gay/lesbian think it’s good choice for allowing the legality of the their marriage BUT “Against-Nature Marriage” will probably misunderstood by certain people. I never blame them for protecting their rights. It’s just protecting something against us make people questioned, "is it really WORTH fighting for that risk??!!" I need some feedback on how we should look this matter.