2008 California Proposition 8

"Proposition 8" and "California Proposition 8" redirect here. For other uses, see Proposition 8 (disambiguation).

Proposition 8 was a California ballot proposition passed in the November 4, 2008, general election. It changed the state Constitution to restrict the definition of marriage to opposite-sex couples and eliminated same-sex couples' right to marry, thereby overriding portions of the ruling of In re Marriage Cases. The measure added a new section (7.5) to Article I, which reads: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." California's State Constitution put the measure into immediate effect on November 5, the day after the election. The proposition did not affect the existing domestic partnerships in California.

The campaigns for and against Proposition 8 raised $39.9 million and $43.3 million, respectively, becoming the highest-funded campaign on any state ballot that day and surpassing every campaign in the country in spending except the presidential contest. The proponents argued that exclusively heterosexual marriage was "an essential institution of society," that leaving the constitution unchanged would "result in public schools teaching our kids that gay marriage is okay," and that gays would "redefine marriage for everyone else." Opponents argued that "the freedom to marry is fundamental to our society," that the California constitution "should guarantee the same freedom and rights to everyone" and that the proposition "mandates one set of rules for gay and lesbian couples and another set for everyone else." They also argued that "equality under the law is a fundamental constitutional guarantee" (see Equal Protection Clause).

After the elections, demonstrations and protests occurred across the state and nation. Numerous lawsuits were filed with the California Supreme Court by same-sex couples and government entities, challenging the proposition's validity and effect on previously administered same-sex marriages. The court heard oral arguments on March 5, 2009 and is expected to reach a decision within 90 days of that date.

History of the ballot initiative

See also: History of Marriage in California

To qualify for the ballot, Proposition 8 needed 694,354 valid petition signatures, equal to 8% of the total votes cast for governor in the November 2006 General Election. The initiative proponents submitted 1,120,801 signatures, and on June 2, 2008, the initiative qualified for the November 4, 2008 election ballot through the random sample signature check.

Pre-election legal challenges

Petition to remove proposition from ballot

Further information: California Constitution § Amendments and revisions

On July 16, 2008, the California Supreme Court denied a petition calling for the removal of Proposition 8 from the November ballot. The petition asserted the proposition should not be on the ballot on the grounds it was a constitutional revision that only the Legislature or a constitutional convention could place before voters. Opponents also argued that the petitions circulated to qualify the measure for the ballot inaccurately summarized its effect. The court denied the petition without comment. As a general rule, it is improper for courts to adjudicate pre-election challenges to a measure's substantive validity. The question of whether Proposition 8 is a constitutional amendment or constitutional revision remains unresolved, and a new petition arguing that Proposition 8 is a revision was filed by civil rights groups on November 5, 2008.

Challenge to revised title and summary

During the initiative process, the measure was known by three different titles: a proposed title, a circulating title and a ballot title. The title, as initially proposed by the measure's proponents, was "The California Marriage Protection Act." In November 2007, the Office of the California Attorney General prepared its "circulating title and summary"—that is, the title and summary to be used on the initiative's signature petition—in accordance with California Election Code § 9002, 9004. Its circulating title was "Limit on Marriage. Constitutional Amendment" and the summary stated that the measure "amends the California Constitution to provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

After the California Supreme Court issued its May 2008 In re Marriage Cases ruling, which found laws excluding same-sex couples from marriage to be unconstitutional, the Office of the California Secretary of State certified the measure for the November 4, 2008 election, leaving intact its circulating title and summary.

Upon certification, it was sent back to the Attorney General's office in accordance with California Election Code § 9051 for preparation of a "ballot title and summary" to be used on the ballot and in the official voter guide. Thus, the measure's third, and final, title became "Eliminates Rights of Same-Sex Couples to Marry. Initiative Constitutional Amendment." The ballot summary read that the measure "changes the California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in California."

Proponents of the measure objected to the wording of the ballot title and summary on the grounds that they were argumentative and prejudicial. The resulting legal petition Jansson v. Bowen was dismissed August 7, 2008 by California Superior Court Judge Timothy M. Frawley, who ruled that "the title and summary includes an essentially verbatim recital of the text of the measure itself", and that the change was valid because the measure did, in fact, eliminate a right upheld by the California Supreme Court.

California Attorney General Jerry Brown explained that the changes were required to more "accurately reflect the measure" in light of the California Supreme Court's intervening In re Marriage Cases decision.

On July 22, 2008, Proposition 8 supporters mounted a legal challenge to the revised ballot title and summary, contending that Attorney General Brown inserted "language [...] so inflammatory that it will unduly prejudice voters against the measure". Supporters claimed that research showed that an attorney general had never used an active verb like “eliminates” in the title of a ballot measure in the past fifty years in which ballot measures have been used. Representatives of the Attorney General produced twelve examples of ballot measures using the word "eliminates" and vouched for the neutrality and accuracy of the ballot language.

On August 8, 2008, the California Superior Court turned down the legal challenge, affirming the new title and summary, stating, "[t]he title and summary is not false or misleading because it states that Proposition 8 would 'eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry' in California. The California Supreme Court unequivocally held that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry under the California Constitution." That same day, proponents of Prop. 8 filed an emergency appeal with the state appeals court. The Court of Appeal denied their petition later that day and supporters did not seek a review by the Supreme Court of California. The deadline for court action on the wording of ballot summaries and arguments in the voter pamphlet was August 11, 2008.

While turning down the challenge to the title and summary, the California Superior Court also found that the Yes on 8 campaign had overstated its ballot argument on the measure's impact on public schools and ordered a minor change in wording. The original arguments included a claim that the Supreme Court's legalization of same-sex marriage requires teachers to tell their students, as young as kindergarten age, that same-sex marriage is the same as opposite-sex marriage. The court said the Yes on 8 argument was false because instruction on marriage is not required and parents can withdraw their children. The court said the ballot argument could be preserved by rewording it to state that teachers "may" or "could" be required to tell children there is no difference between same-sex and opposite-sex marriage.

Campaign

Campaign funding and spending

By Election Day, volunteers on both sides spent thousands of hours getting their messages across to the state's 17.3 million registered voters. The campaigns for and against Proposition 8 raised $39.9 million and $43.3 million, respectively. Contributions totaled over $83 million from over 64,000 people in all fifty states and more than twenty foreign countries, setting a new record nationally for a social policy initiative and trumping every other race in the country in spending except the presidential contest. Contributions were much greater than those of previous same-sex marriage initiatives. Between 2004 and 2006, 22 such measures were on ballots around the country, and donations to all of them combined totaled $31.4 million, according to the nonpartisan National Institute on Money in State Politics. A ProtectMarriage.com spokeswoman estimated that 36 companies which had previously contributed to Equality California were targeted to receive a letter requesting similar donations to ProtectMarriage.com.

"Whether You Like It or Not" advertisement

In the months leading up to Election Day, Proposition 8 supporters released a commercial featuring San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom stating in a speech regarding same-sex marriage: "This door's wide open now. It's going to happen, whether you like it or not." Some observers noted that polls shifted in favor of Proposition 8 following the release of the commercial; this, in turn, led to much speculation about Newsom’s unwitting role in the passage of the amendment. A January 2009 Newsweek article stated:

[A]sk average Californians what they remember about Newsom at the moment, and they're likely to offer six words: "whether you like it or not." That's what Newsom said about gay marriage—it was coming to California, and America, whether you like it or not. He said it in a speech, shortly after the California Supreme Court extended marriage rights to gays and lesbians. But his words were captured for posterity in an ad for Proposition 8, the ballot initiative seeking to reverse that decision. The ad begins with footage of a gloating Newsom grinning widely and gesturing broadly as he exclaims "the door's wide open, it's going to happen, whether you like it or not" ... Airing across the state, the ad was viewed as among the most effective in support of the ban.

Proponents

Official ProtectMarriage.com "Yes on 8" campaign sign.

The ProtectMarriage.com organization sponsored the initiative that placed Proposition 8 on the ballot and continues to support the measure. The measure also attracted the support of a number of political figures and religious organizations.

Political figures

Republican presidential nominee and U.S. Senator John McCain released a statement of support for the proposed constitutional amendment. Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich released a video in support. Both characterized the court ruling requiring recognition of same sex marriage as being against the will of the people. Other notable supporters include Republican State Senator Tom McClintock and 20 other Republican State Senators and Assemblymembers.

Religious organizations

Rally for Yes on Prop 8 in Fresno

The Roman Catholic Church, as well as a Roman Catholic lay fraternal organization, the Knights of Columbus, staunchly supported the measure. The bishops of the California Catholic Conference released a statement supporting the proposition. This position met with mixed reactions among church members: One priest in Fresno, Geoffrey Farrow, came out as a gay priest and told his parishioners to oppose Proposition 8. Farrow was promptly suspended from his duties by Bishop John Steinbock. Following the suspension, the bishops reiterated their position in a pastoral letter which was read aloud, prompting some parishioners to applaud, while others walked out of the church in protest. When Farrow later applied for the executive director position at the interfaith organization Clergy and Laity United for Economic Justice in Los Angeles, the Archdiocese threatened to withdraw all funding, and Farrows interview process was terminated.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, whose members are commonly known as Mormons, also publicly supported the proposition. The First Presidency of the church announced its support for Proposition 8 in a letter intended to be read in every congregation in California. In this letter, church members were encouraged to "do all you can to support the proposed constitutional amendment by donating of your means and time." Local LDS leaders set organizational and monetary goals for their membership—sometimes quite specific—to fulfill this call. The response of the LDS membership to their leadership's appeals to donate money and volunteer time was very supportive, such that Latter-day Saints provided a significant source for financial donations in support of the proposition, both inside and outside the State of California. About 45% of out-of-state contributions to ProtectMarriage.com came from Utah, over three times more than any other state. ProtectMarriage, the official proponents of Proposition 8, estimate that about half the donations they received came from LDS sources, and that "eighty to ninety percent" of the early volunteers going door-to-door were LDS. The LDS Church produced and broadcast to its congregations a program describing the opposition to the Proposition, and describing the timeline it proposes for what it describes as grassroots efforts to oppose the Proposition.

Other religious organizations that supported Proposition 8 include the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, Eastern Orthodox Church, a group of Evangelical Christians led by Jim Garlow and Miles McPherson, American Family Association, Focus on the Familyand the National Organization for Marriage.

Others

The Grossmont Union High School District in San Diego County, California, publicly voted on a resolution endorsing Proposition 8. The Governing Board voted 4-0 to endorse the amendment of the California State Constitution.

The Asian Heritage Coalition held a rally in support of Proposition 8 in downtown San Diego on October 19, 2008.

Rick Warren, pastor of Saddleback Church, also endorsed the measure.

Opponents

Official "Vote NO on Prop 8" logo

Equality for All was the lead organization opposed to Proposition 8. They also ran the NoOnProp8.com campaign. As with the measure's proponents, opponents of the measure also included a number of political figures and religious organizations. Some non-partisan organizations and corporations, as well as the editorial boards of many of the state's major newspapers, also opposed the measure.

Political figures

While a Democratic presidential nominee and U.S. Senator, Barack Obama stated that he personally considers marriage to be between a man and woman, and supports civil unions that confer comparable rights rather than gay marriage, but stated that he opposed the proposition and other attempts to amend the federal and state constitutions. Then Illinois Senator Barack Obama opposed what he deemed 'divisive and discriminatory efforts to amend the California Constitution, and similar efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution or those of other states.' Furthermore, in an MTV interview he expressed that "when you start playing around with constitutions, just to prohibit somebody who cares about another person, it just seems to me that's not what America's about. Usually, our constitutions expand liberties, they don't contract them."

Obama's opposition to Proposition 8 was consistent with statements he made in his 1996 campaign for the Illinois Senate that he supported same-sex marriage. Democratic vice-presidential candidate Joseph Biden also opposed the proposition. Despite Senator John McCain's support of Proposition 8, his senior adviser, Steve Schmidt, voted against it, saying that "it cannot be argued that marriage between people of the same sex is 'un-American' or threatens the rights of others". Republican California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger stated that although he opposed and twice vetoed legislative bills that would recognize same sex marriage in California, he respects and will uphold the court's ruling and opposes the initiative and other attempts to amend the state's constitution. The U.S. House Speaker, California Representative (8th District), Nancy Pelosi along with twenty other members of the 53 member California congressional delegation and both of California's U.S. senators, Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, voiced their opposition to Proposition 8. Also voicing their opposition were the Lieutenant Governor, State Controller John Chiang, 42 of 80 members of the state assembly, half of the state senators, and the mayors of San Francisco, Los Angeles, and San Diego: Gavin Newsom, Antonio Villaraigosa, and Jerry Sanders, respectively.

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom speaks at an Anti-Proposition 8 Rally at Stanford University

Several months after the vote, while attending the first LGBT reception event at Number 10 Downing Street, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Gordon Brown, criticized Proposition 8 as "unacceptable, this attempt to undo good that has been done, this attempt to create divorces for 18,000 people who were perfectly legally brought together in partnerships."

Religious organizations

All six Episcopal diocesan bishops in California jointly issued a statement opposing Proposition 8 on September 10, 2008. Southern California's largest collection of rabbis, the Board of Rabbis of Southern California, voted to oppose Proposition 8. Other Jewish groups who opposed Proposition 8 include Jewish Mosaic, the American Jewish Committee, Progressive Jewish Alliance, National Council of Jewish Women, and the Anti-Defamation League. Los Angeles Jews were more opposed to Prop 8 than any other religious group or ethnic group in the city. Jewish Angelinos voted 78% against the ban while only 8% supported the ban; the remainder declined to respond. The legislative ministry of the Unitarian Universalists opposed Proposition 8, and organized phone banks toward defeating the measure.

Others

The League of Women Voters of California opposed Proposition 8 because "no person or group should suffer legal, economic or administrative discrimination." Amnesty International condemned Proposition 8, saying that "states should never withhold rights based on minority status".

A coalition of Silicon Valley executives urged a 'No' vote on Proposition 8. Google officially opposed Proposition 8 "as an issue of equality." Apple Inc. also opposed Proposition 8 as a "fundamental" civil rights issue, and donated $100,000 to the No on 8 campaign. Biotech leaders warned of potential damage to the state's $73 billion industry, citing Massachusetts as a top competitor for employees. Many members of the entertainment industry were opposed to Proposition 8.

The Los Angeles Unified School District Board of Education voted unanimously for a resolution to oppose Proposition 8. The California Teachers Association donated one million dollars to fight Proposition 8. Chancellor Robert Birgeneau of UC Berkeley urged a vote against the measure, claiming a likely threat to California's academic competitiveness if Proposition 8 is passed.

All ten of the state's largest newspapers editorialized against Proposition 8: the Los Angeles Times, the San Francisco Chronicle, the San Diego Union-Tribune, The Orange County Register, The Sacramento Bee, the San Jose Mercury News, the Contra Costa Times, The Press-Enterprise (Riverside-San Bernardino), The Fresno Bee, and the Daily News (Los Angeles). Other papers to have editorialized in opposition include The New York Times, La Opinión (Los Angeles), and The Bakersfield Californian.

Opinion polls

Various opinion polls were conducted to estimate the outcome of the proposition. Those margins with differences less than their margins of error are marked as "n.s.", meaning not significant (see Statistical significance). Those margins considered statistically significant are indicated with the percentage points and the side favored in the poll, as either "pro" for in favor of the proposition's passage (e.g. 1% pro), or "con" for against its passage (e.g. 1% con).

According to the director of The Field Poll, the discrepancy between the pre-election polls and ballot results is because "regular church-goers ... were more prone than other voters to be influenced by last-minute appeals to conform to orthodox church positions when voting on a progressive social issue like same-sex marriage."

Date of opinion poll	Conducted by	Sample size (likely voters)	In favor	Against	Undecided	Margin	Margin of Error
29–31 October 2008	SurveyUSA	637	47%	50%	3%	n.s.	±4%
18–28 October 2008	The Field Poll	966	44%	49%	7%	5% con	±3.3%
12–19 October 2008	Public Policy Institute of California	1,186	44%	52%	4%	8% con	±3%
15–16 October 2008	SurveyUSA	615	48%	45%	7%	n.s.	±4%
4–5 October 2008	SurveyUSA	670	47%	42%	10%	5% pro	±3.9%
23–24 September 2008	SurveyUSA	661	44%	49%	8%	5% pro	±3.9%
9–16 September 2008	Public Policy Institute of California	1,157	41%	55%	4%	14% con	±3%
5–14 September 2008	The Field Poll	830	38%	55%	7%	17% con	±3.5%
12–19 August 2008	Public Policy Institute of California	1,047	40%	54%	6%	14% con	±3%
8–14 July 2008	The Field Poll	672	42%	51%	7%	9% con	±3.9%
17–26 May 2008	The Field Poll	1,052	42%	51%	7%	9% con	±3.2%
21–22 May 2008	Los Angeles Times/KTLA	705	54%	35%	11%	19% pro	±4%

Results

Electoral results by county.

Proposition 8

Choice	Votes	%
Yes	7,001,084	52.24
No	6,401,482	47.76
Valid votes	13,402,566	97.52
Invalid or blank votes	340,611	2.48
Total votes	13,743,177	100.00

Amending the California Constitution by voter initiative requires a simple majority to be enacted. 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." 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." 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.

CNN exit poll

CNN conducted an exit poll representing the only source of data on voter demographics in California in the 2008 election. Interpreting this exit poll requires some care, as CNN did not provide the poll locations where the surveys were conducted. This can be a problem, because exit polls are more inaccurate than regular opinion polls, due to an intrinsic geographical bias stemming from the fact that most precincts are not sampled.

The statistical trends from the CNN exit poll of 2,240 voters suggested that an array of voters came out both in opposition to and in support of Proposition 8, with no single demographic group making up all of either the Yes or No vote. These demographic trends were published in the media, including the following:

The following list comprises a detailed, though not exhaustive, account of the demographics voting on Prop. 8 from the CNN exit poll.

	Size	Yes	No
Party
Democratic	42%	36%	64%
Independent	28%	46%	54%
Republican	29%	82%	18%
Ideology
Liberal	26%	22%	78%
Moderate	44%	47%	53%
Conservative	30%	85%	15%
Race
Black	10%	70%	30%
Hispanic	18%	53%	47%
White	63%	49%	51%
Asian	6%	49%	51%
Other	3%	51%	49%
Sex
Female	54%	52%	48%
Male	46%	53%	47%
Religion
Protestant	43%	65%	35%
Catholic	30%	64%	36%
Jewish	5%	22%	78%
Other	6%	*	*
None	16%	10%	90%
Military Background
Yes	14%	*	*
No	86%	48%	52%
Family Income
Less than $15,000	5%	46%	54%
$15,000–$29,999	10%	48%	52%
$30,000-$49,999	15%	54%	46%
$50,000-$74,999	19%	54%	46%
$75,000-$99,999	17%	50%	50%
$100,000-$149,999	17%	54%	46%
$150,000-$199,999	7%	47%	53%
Greater than $200,000	9%	45%	55%
Education
No High School	3%	*	*
H.S. Graduate	14%	56%	44%
Some College	33%	57%	43%
College Graduate	33%	50%	50%
Postgraduate Study	17%	40%	60%
Union Membership
Union Member	25%	56%	44%
Non-Union Member	75%	50%	50%
Age
18–29 years old	20%	39%	61%
30-44 years old	28%	55%	45%
45–64 years old	36%	54%	46%
65 years or older	15%	61%	39%
Region
Los Angeles County	22%	51%	49%
Southern California	30%	58%	42%
Bay Area	17%	34%	66%
Coastal	10%	38%	62%
Inland/Valley	21%	65%	35%
Sexual Orientation
Heterosexual	95%	54%	46%
Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual	5%	2%	98%
Gun Ownership
Gun Owner in Household	31%	62%	38%
No Gun Owner in Household	69%	47%	53%
Bush Approval
Approve	21%	86%	14%
Disapprove	77%	40%	60%

Polls showed that gender shared virtually no correlation with the vote.

Raw data from the poll is also available at http://www.sacbee.com/elections/story/1372009.html.

While the CNN election exit poll has sparked discussion concerning the widely discussed role of the African American vote in the passage of proposition 8, another report indicates that African American influence was overestimated and that frequency of religious attendance, party identification, and political ideology were more closely correlated to votes in favor of the proposition.

Post-election events

Retroactive effect

A pending legal issue is whether approximately 18,000 same-sex marriages already in effect would be retroactively annulled by the constitutional change or whether they would be preserved, since the amendment does not state explicitly that it would nullify same-sex marriages performed before the change took effect. California Attorney General Jerry Brown said that existing same-sex marriages would be unaffected, but other legal experts are uncertain. The official proponents of Proposition 8 argue in their November 19, 2008 brief to the Court that the measure does annul existing same-sex marriages.

California Supreme Court cases

Main article: Lawsuits to overturn Proposition 8

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 state Attorney General 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. The Court asked for final briefs by January 5, 2009. Oral arguments were held on March 5, 2009 and decisions are typically issued ninety days later. Despite the uncertainty of the outcome, journalists such as John Schwartz and Jesse McKinley of the New York Times have noted that the California Supreme Court "seemed ready ... to uphold the ban on same-sex marriage", while appearing "reluctant to undo the 18,000 marriages conducted before the ban was passed."

Demonstrations and boycotts

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

Whoopi Goldberg at a New York City protest on November 13, 2008, after the proposition passed

Following the passage of Proposition 8, mass protests took place across the state. Santa Monica Boulevard was closed as more than a thousand protesters gathered outside the Los Angeles Temple in Westwood because of the prominent role that members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, commonly known as Mormons, took in supporting the proposition. Additionally, demonstrators marched through Hollywood, blocking traffic and eliciting police intervention. In Sacramento nearly one thousand protesters peacefully gathered for a candlelight vigil in front of the Sacramento Gay and Lesbian Center. Three hundred more marched through the streets with protest signs. On Sunday November 9 an estimated crowd of 4,000 people protested in front of the State Capitol. 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. In addition to the protests at the Los Angeles Temple, protests were also held outside other California LDS Temples, including the San Diego Temple and the Oakland Temple. Several celebrities joined the protests, including Drew Barrymore in California and Whoopi Goldberg in New York.

Outside California, thousands of protesters gathered outside the headquarters of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Salt Lake City, Utah. Prior to marching around the church office buildings and Temple Square, demonstrators gathered in downtown City Creek Park to hear remarks from local gay rights supporters including former Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson and three openly gay members of the Utah Legislature: Senator Scott McCoy and Representatives Christine Johnson and Jackie Biskupski. 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. 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.

Pro and Anti-Proposition 8 protesters rally in front of the San Francisco City Hall on the day of the Supreme Court hearings

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. 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. An emergency session of the board of directors of CMT was scheduled to address the situation but was later canceled. 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. On November 12, Scott 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.

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

Proposition 8: The Musical

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 beginning on December 3, 2008. It was written and produced in just a few days. 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 and other celebrities. It was directed by Adam Shankman. The video satirizes Christian churches that selectively pick and choose biblical doctrines to follow. Among other comic assertions in the video is a song alleging that gay marriages would save the economy, inspired by a UCLA study finding that legalization of gay marriage would provide $370M in additional revenue to the California economy. It received 1.2 million internet hits in its first day, was nominated for the Webby Award category Comedy: Individual Short or Episode, and won a GLAAD media award.

FPPC complaint against The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

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 underreported its actual Proposition 8 campaign expenses as $2,078.97. 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."

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. On January 31, the SF 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."

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.

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.

Campaign donor disclosure controversy

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. 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.

Crimes Against Opponents and Proponents

Even before the vote, Alan Autry (the mayor of Fresno) received an email containing death threats against both himself and Cornerstone Church Pastor Jim Franklin. This caused police to assign the pastor officers for his protection and motivated the mayor to obtain a bodyguard. According to Fresno's Police Chief Jerry Dyer the email "did state as to why that threat was made and it was stemming from prop 8." Both Autry and Franklin are prominent Proposition 8 supporters. Police have announced that they are close to making an arrest in the case. The pastor's church was also vandalized.

In November 2008, the United States Postal Service delivered envelopes containing white powder to two LDS temples and a Catholic fraternity, prompting a hazardous materials response and a domestic terrorism federal investigation. News sources reasoned that these crimes were directed at The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and the Knights of Columbus for their support of Proposition 8. Although, FBI Special Agent Juan Becerra stated: "We've got to follow the evidence and at this point we have not received anything that would lead us to believe the opponents of Prop. 8 are behind any kind of terroristic activity. It would be irresponsible to say that at this point." The anthrax hoaxes were reported on November 13, 2008 at Salt Lake City's Temple Square, the Los Angeles California Temple, and at a printing plant belonging to the Knights of Columbus (a Roman Catholic fraternity) in New Haven, Connecticut.

Ten LDS church buildings in the Sacramento region and seven houses of worship in Utah were vandalized in the ten days following the November 4 election, more than expected for an entire year. The FBI is investigating whether civil rights charges can be brought against the perpetrators and whether the acts of vandalism are hate crimes. At a Mormon church in Orangevale, vandals spray painted in red letters on the front sign and sidewalk: "No on 8" and "No on Prop 8". On November 11, a Book of Mormon was burned on the doorstep of a Latter-Day Saint chapel in Littleton, Colorado, which is being investigated as a hate crime. It was reported that yard signs supporting Prop. 8 were rearranged into the shape of swastika at a Roman Catholic church in Riverside.

Santa Clara County Deputy District Attorney (DDA) Jay Boyarsky attributed a surge in anti-gay hate crimes, from 3 in 2007 to 14 in 2008, to controversy over Proposition 8. However, the DDA cautioned against reading too much from small statistical samples, pointing out that the vast majority of hate incidents don't get referred to the DA's office.

In Contra Costa County, in March 2009, Joseph Storm was sentenced to probation and an anger management class after attacking a gay man over a Proposition 8 sign dispute, calling him derogatory names, beating him with a sign and choking him. Storm pleaded no contest to one charge.

KFSN-TV Fresno reported that "Supporters of gay marriage are also being harassed. Over night someone tore up signs at the Clovis Unitarian Universalist Church. Reverend Bryan Jessup at that time said every night they endure vandalism because they oppose Prop 8."

See also

• California Proposition 22 (2000)
• Arizona Proposition 107 (2006)
• Arizona Proposition 102 (2008)
• Briggs Initiative
• California state elections, November 2008
• Civil union
• Florida Amendment 2 (2008)

External links

• California Official Voter Information Guide on Proposition 8, Title and summary, analysis, arguments and rebuttals, and the text of the proposition.
• Proposition 8 California Supreme Court Filings Fully Searchable Briefs, Responses, & Orders
• ProtectMarriage.com, organizational sponsor of Proposition 8
• No On Prop. 8, official website against Proposition 8
• Scan of Initiative from California Attorney General website
• In re Marriages The full text of In re Marriage Cases, the decision from the California Supreme Court, May 15, 2008
• REPLY Reply brief in Bennett v. Bowen (Hollingsworth) S165420
• Official Proposition 8 Campaign Finance The official source from the California Secretary of State
• Proposition 8 Support and Opposition Financial Contributions
• Tracking the money