Top

news

Stories

 

New Gay-Marriage War Coming to California

Many expect state Supreme Court to back Proposition 8

Whether or not the California State Supreme Court upholds Proposition 8, one thing is certain: The battle to legalize or ban gay marriage in California will not end with the justices’ ruling due before June 3.

“We’re getting ready for a new campaign,” says Frank Schubert, campaign manager for “Yes on 8.” “We’re going to be ready for that.”

Rick Jacobs, the gay founder of the Courage Campaign, a politically progressive, online organizing group which is building a grassroots movement to legalize gay marriage in California, says, “If we lose at the hand of the Supreme Court, we need to win at the ballot box. There’s no other way.”

No one knows, though, exactly when the next showdown will take place.

The talk of another ballot-measure fight started soon after oral arguments were heard last Thursday by the California State Supreme Court in San Francisco, where competing attorneys asked the justices to either overturn or uphold Proposition 8, the ballot measure that California voters passed in November taking away the right of gays and lesbians to legally marry.

Noted UCLA constitutional-law professor Eugene Volokh won’t speculate on how the Supreme Court may rule, but he echoes dozens of scholars who believe “Yes on 8” lawyers, led by Pepperdine Law School Dean Kenneth Starr, have the “better legal argument.”

“However right or wrong an issue may be doesn’t matter,” says Volokh, a supporter of gay marriage. “What matters is whether Proposition 8 is a revision or an amendment, and the people have a right to amend the (state) constitution.”

A ballot measure, according to Volokh and many other legal scholars, only falls under the category of a “revision” when there’s “a massive change that affects the constitution in a major way.” In the law professor’s opinion, Proposition 8 “only changes one particular subject.”

“It is very much an amendment,” Volokh concludes.

Schubert, as a result of that technical argument, believes gay-marriage foes will end up with a favorable ruling. “It went very well,” says Schubert, who attended the Supreme Court hearing in person. “It seemed there’s little sentiment to overturn Prop. 8.” Schubert, though, does not expect the justices to invalidate the same-sex marriages that took place between June and November of 2008, which “Yes on 8” lawyers were also seeking.

Even if the Supreme Court upholds Proposition 8, Schubert is preparing for another battle over gay marriage — just as the pro-gay marriage forces are — citing an ongoing “education and outreach program.” “We have pastors and priests talking about traditional marriage in churches,” he says. The political strategist plans to use the unspent cash in the “Yes on 8” war chest, which he says is in the range of $500,000 to $850,000, on more message-oriented research and focus groups to bolster the “Yes on 8” movement.

Schubert says the “No on 8” loss has “pretty much obliterated” the gay leadership structure in California, so it’s “difficult to know what the other side will do, since there isn’t anyone in charge anymore.”

“The evidence of that,” Schubert further explains, “is that you have all of these grassroots groups getting involved without any input from the usual gay leaders.”

Jacobs says Schubert is somewhat correct in assessing the disarray among gay leaders. “He’s right about grassroots,” says Jacobs, “but he’s looking in the wrong direction. All kinds of people want gay-marriage equality, not just gays and lesbians. He clearly doesn’t understand movement politics, and that’s what we’re seeing.”

Jacobs is trying to organize a new, grassroots-oriented gay-rights movement in California. After November 4, the top-down management style of the campaign, which was headed up by such longtime gay leaders as Geoff Kors of Equality California and Lorri Jean of the L.A. Gay & Lesbian Center, was widely seen as a weak link in the failed effort. Over the past few months, the Courage Campaign has been hosting a two-day training seminar, “Camp Courage,” for gay activists throughout the state.

The organization also produced a pro-gay marriage video called “Fidelity,” which was released on its Web site (www.couragecampaign.org), and it has collected more than 300,000 signatures from people who pledge to overturn Proposition 8. Since November 5, the Courage Campaign says it has increased its e-mail list from 125,000 people to 700,000.

Jacobs, who watched the Supreme Court proceedings on a San Francisco street where a live feed played on an outdoor screen, thinks the justices will probably uphold Proposition 8, and he’s now concerned that longtime gay power brokers such as Equality California may push for a new ballot measure in 2010. “It’s one of my greatest fears,” says Jacobs, noting that the gay-rights movement first needs to “build a (grassroots) infrastructure” and educate voters about gay marriage in California counties where “No on 8” lost — including Los Angeles County. “If we get a few more percentage points in places like Fresno,” Jacobs says, “we win.”

“The right time for us to go to the ballot is when we’re ready,” says Jacobs, “not when the ballot is ready.”

Contact Patrick Range McDonald at pmcdonald@laweekly.com.

 
  • Derem Miegara 06/28/2009 5:13:00 AM

    the gay parade proud and gay they march along growing in numbers, weak but strong following the footsteps of another race creating their own, demanding their place prophecy foretold of these times of men depraved, with reprobate minds still on they go against the wind blindly led, sick within they wear their suffering on their sleeve and call it gay, but who believes they want so much to be a part closet fugitives, with jealous hearts they impose perversion, that we contend making it law, protecting sin but when we preach against their state they loudly resist, and call it hate of God's first institution, they mockingly err they wrongly define, they wrongly pair unholy unions with conscience aloof they live by feelings, devoid of truth the legacy of sin is always shame and by their choice, will not be saved for they used a vice to vent their sorrow lived only for today, and not for tomorrow

  • sebjac 03/16/2009 10:27:00 AM

    With respect to the comments about Rick Jacobs and Courage Campaign--they were not around prior to the election because they did not exist. This group like Join the Impact and many others have sprung up since Nov. 4th. Anyone can find out their history on their web site, who they are, their mission etc. Perhaps more people ought to check their facts before they blast an organization.

  • snyper42 03/14/2009 10:49:00 AM

    I need to make an update correction: Since last I checked with the NZ authorities, New Zealand has retrenched it's laws to reaffirm "marriage" as a male/female partnership . . . but left their civil union regulations intact. :(

  • snyper42 03/14/2009 10:49:00 AM

    I need to make an update correction: Since last I checked with the NZ authorities, New Zealand has retrenched it's laws to reaffirm "marriage" as a male/female partnership . . . but left their civil union regulations intact. :(

  • Russell 03/14/2009 8:32:00 AM

    So if the people passed an amendment that only whites could marry would the court stand aside on that measure too?

  • wait 03/14/2009 7:15:00 AM

    Didn't the PEOPLE VOTE ON THIS? What did the VOTE say?? This is what helps debunk our Constitution. Pitiful that no one respects that, gay or otherwise.

  • JJ 03/13/2009 6:02:00 AM

    So, what happens if the Supremes up hold Prop 8 and simply tell the legislature to change the wording to 'Civil Unions', espousal relationships, etc. Basically leaving the term 'Marriage' to the religions zealots? What then?

  • john r 03/12/2009 11:41:00 PM

    for equal rights protection to be determined by majority referendum puts our legal system back 100 years. antiqity has never been a source for the truth. that is why things are challenged and why things changed ,because of those challenges. if the justices appear to be irritated its because of their being put in a position of having to make either a very unpopular decision or legally a very stupid one.

  • john r 03/12/2009 11:38:00 PM

    for equal rights protection to be determined by majority referendum puts our legal system back 100 years. antiqity has never been a source for the truth. that is why things are challenged and why things changed ,because of those challenges. if the justices appear to be irritated its because of their being put in a position of having to make either a very unpopular decision or legally a very stupid one.

  • snyper42 03/12/2009 2:36:00 PM

    I have repeatedly read and heard the phrase "... the sanctity of marriage ...". In the Oxford Concise Dictionary, the word "sanctity" is defined as: sanctity � noun (pl. sanctities) 1 holiness; saintliness. These indicate that, while borrowed for other usages, the word is essentially a religious one . . . as is "marriage" in the minds of most opponents of same-sex "marriage". I am reminded that the Constitution of the United States of America gives: "...Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...". The laws of our land are somewhat schizophrenic, in that they do not always keep pace with logic and clarity. Many humorous and not-so-humorous examples can come to mind. In this instance, it seems necessary to consider that "marriage", where it is understood as an extension of ones' personal religious views is logically protected by a Constitutionally-mandated blindness on the part of the U.S. Government. Not all religions, not even all sects of Christianity, view marriage as a sacrament or sacred activity. I find a way out of the present tangle of religion and government by looking at the solution presented by New Zealand. In New Zealand, "marriage", like a bris, baptism or whatever religious ritual, does NOT of necessity exist in governmental law or parlance. Instead, they mandated a grandfathering of all marriages prior to their legislation into "Civil Partnerships" as far as the law was concerned. They systematically went through all their old marriage laws and merely substituted the words "Civil Partnership" wherever and whenever the word "marriage" occurred, then expanded the requiremnts to allow for said Civil Partnerships to include same-sex relationships. In New Zealand thought, if any legal Civil Partners wish to have a "marriage" ceremony, it is the purview of their private religious group to oversee such a private religious activity. . . and is in no way the place of the Government to pay it any attention whatsoever. I think that we could take a page from the Kiwis on this matter.

  • Jack Thompson 03/12/2009 12:23:00 PM

    Kudos to the Weekly for continuing to cover this issue, but since when did this Rick Jacobs become our community's savior? From what I've seen and heard, he's an opportunist double-speaking political operative who did nothing to help defeat Prop. 8. Where was he hosting his Camp Courages prior to November? Why wasn't he mobilizing his grassroots hordes earlier? And now he says he's concerned about GAY GROUPS pushing for a 2010 ballot initiative? This is an excerpt from an article on the gay blog Queerty from Jan. 27, just one of many in which Jacobs called for a ballot initiative next year: "Rick Jacobs and the Courage Campaign are leading the way on a 2010 ballot initative that would overturn Prop. 8. Jacobs said, "I don't think anybody knows when is the best time to go back. My philosophy is having it go every time, and eventually we will win." Which statement did you mean, Rick? Or, like a typical political operative, are you just saying what you think people want to hear?

  • tom miller 03/12/2009 10:47:00 AM

    Compare and contrast; one of my high school english teachers drilled that into my head.
Compare and contrast: Slave rights and gay rights; the contrasts are easy, the comparisons are profound. Slaves could not get legally married either. They could not create and sign contracts, and what is marriage mostly (legally speaking) but a huge contract with thousands of rights and responsibilities.
Navanethem Pillay, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights spoke there last year saying, "That just like apartheid laws that criminalized sexual relations between different races, laws against homosexuality are increasingly becoming recognized as anachronistic and inconsistent both with international law and with traditional values of dignity, inclusion, and respect for all."
Apartheid: A system of laws applied to one category of citizens in order to isolate them and keep them from having privileges and opportunities given to all others.
Stop gay apartheid.

 

Most Popular Stories

Browse Voice Nation
  • Voice Places

    Voice Places

    Discover restaurants, nightlife, travel, shopping...

  • VOICE Daily Deals

    VOICE Daily Deals

    Get 50 to 90% off every day on restaurants, movies, massages...

  • Best Of

    Best Of...

    More than 10,000 of the BEST things to eat, drink, and experience

  • My Voice Nation

    My Voice Nation

    Join the Village Voice community and get exclusive deals and info

  • Happy Hour

    Happy Hour

    Your local Happy Hour guide at your fingertips

or

Log in or Sign up

Social Connect:

Use your favorite account to access My Voice Nation.


Use your My Voice Nation account to log in:





Forgot password?
or

Sign Up or Log in

Social Connect:

Sign up for My Voice Nation with your preferred network.


Sign up for a My Voice Nation account:



Privacy policy