Prop 8 gay marriage
Home / identity relationships / Prop 8 gay marriage
They responded by launching a new ballot initiative, this time aiming not just to create a law, but to amend the state's constitution itself. Hodges.
Inside the Trial That Overturned California's Same-Sex Marriage Ban
“I remember feeling very anxious and scared, honestly, not knowing how any of it would turn out,” lead plaintiff Kris Perry said after viewing trial clips at KQED.
And that’s a major deal because it makes you into a second-, third- … and fourth-class citizen,” Katami said that day in January 2010.
Concerns over renewed efforts to make LGBTQ+ people second-class citizens were shared by none other than U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor this summer, following the high court’s ruling siding with a Christian graphic artist who refused to work with same-sex couples.
This legal fight culminated in the landmark 2008 California Supreme Court case, `in_re_marriage_cases`.
The journey of Proposition 8 through the court system was a long and winding road with dramatic twists and turns. They claimed that marriage has, for millennia, been understood as a union between a man and a woman for the primary purpose of procreation and raising children in a stable environment.
Same-sex marriage immediately came to a halt. In `strauss_v_horton` (2009), the court disagreed, upholding Prop 8's validity. This left the 2010 decision of the district court as the binding decision.
Instead, it ruled that the private proponents of Proposition 8 did not have legal `standing` to defend the law in federal court. California voters overwhelmingly approved this initiative, which was a simple statute—not a constitutional amendment—stating that California would only recognize marriages between a man and a woman.
The very purpose of the `bill_of_rights` and the Fourteenth Amendment is to protect minority groups from the “tyranny of the majority.” A person's right to marry the person they love, they claimed, cannot be put up for an election. But Judge Walker recorded the trial anyway, he said, for his personal use in writing the decision.
On the stand, Katami was asked by one of their attorneys, David Boies, what the big deal was about not being able to marry when they had the option of a domestic partnership.
“The big deal is it’s creating a separate category for us.
This is the story of Proposition 8, one of the most significant and fiercely contested civil rights battles in modern American history. The case was no longer about interpreting the California Constitution; it was about whether Proposition 8 violated the fundamental rights guaranteed to all Americans by the U.S.
Constitution, specifically the fourteenth_amendment. It was the explosive climax of a decade-long legal and social tug-of-war in California. They pointed out that many heterosexual couples cannot or choose not to have children, yet are allowed to marry.