Continuing Update

Last update before I sleep tonight (yes, I know, I'm going to bed just a little after midnight, I get that I'm somewhat uncool for doing so on election night).

California
Precincts reporting: 62%
Yes: 52%
No: 48%

Los Angeles County
Precincts reporting: 51%
Yes: 53%
No: 47%

I'd be interested to see when I get the results in the morning, if Los Angeles county did indeed end up being very close to the results for the entire state. Right now, the results are off by only 1% , interesting considering that many other counties in the state are severely polarized towards one side or another (See San Francisco/No, Madera/Yes). I also imagine the reason for news organizations holding off on calling the proposition, is due to smaller amount of precincts reporting in Los Angeles County as compared to other states. No one wants to call this before they are absolutely sure, no matter what result the trend suggests. There are too many people watching the outcome of this proposition, in and out of state. The media is not about to commit a Florida here.

This time data was taken from cnn.com, as latimes.com appeared to be slow on the update. This will be my last update for the night, assuming that the proposition is not called in the next few moments. I will return in the morning with commentary on the final result

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/county/#val=CAI01p2

The President elect...and the wait begins

Oh the Obama mania. It would only be expected at the college with the most liberal student body in the country...but still it was an experience. With the Cooler compeltely full of excited students, the room EXPLODED at 8pm PST, when the majority of the polls closed and Obama was declared to be the President elect. It was definitly a crazy experience.

But as wonderful as the news about Obama is, the wait is still on going for Proposition 8. The verdict thus far? Not good. LA times has a nifty page tracking all the California propositions, which with 36% of precincts reporting, puts Yes in the lead with 52.6% of the vote. (CNN has very similar numbers as well). This is not looking good folks.

Even more worrying, is that with 23.1% reporting in Los Angeles county, Yes is up with 54.5% of the vote. As a population center, this trend needs to reverse or at least shrink in order for Proposition 8 to fail. In the words of a text sent to me from a friend who has been very active on the No on 8 campaign, "It all rests in LA. If LA loses, we lose."

I don't know if I'll be awake still when the decision on Proposition 8 is projected, my brain is starting to crash after all the caffeine and sugar and excitement of Obama. Still, as I've been saying for many weeks...I'm very worried.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/politics/cal/la-2008election-california-results,0,1293859.htmlstory?view=8&tab=0&fnum=0

From the Eyes of Yours Truely

So, as some of my readers know, I am registered to vote in California, and thus, voted at my local polling place this morning. (The Deaf Center a few blocks from the Occidental College Campus). I went at 11:30, right after I got out of my morning class, and at that time the line wasn't too long- I waited about 45 minutes to vote, and that was mainly due to a rush of Oxy students...all coming to vote during their lunch break. Unfortunately, since I didn't receive a sample ballot in the mail, and thus didn't bring that or think to bring another piece of mail to prove my address, as a first time voter I had to vote with a provisional ballot. Annoying, but not a big deal. I imagine many Oxy students who were registered close to the deadline had this problem - on the provisional ballot roll, I recognised at least the two other names immediately above my own. At any rate, I managed to vote, got a chuckle out of a student from a one of my classes last year running for a state level position as a libertarian, (Tom Logan), and got the coveted "I voted" sticker.

I also got a kick out of seeing a student at the polls I know that Oxy for Obama managed to register for the first time. Proof that all our efforts weren't for nothing.

But I've deviated a bit from the subject of this blog - Proposition 8. Outside of my polling location, there were No on 8 demonstrators holding signs and passing out leaflets (outside of the required 100ft of course). Beyond one rather enthusiastic man handing me fliers that appeared to be home made and NOT from the No on 8 campaign, the demonstrators were fairly timid and passive. There were no Yes on 8 demonstrators present, either before or after I voted. My guess as to why is fairly straightforward: A significant amount of the voters going to this polling location would be from Oxy, considered to have the "most liberal student body in the country" according to Princeton Review. Students from Oxy are unlikely to be voting or demonstrating for yes on 8, and other groups probably could see their efforts as being more worthwhile elsewhere.

That being said, in the van on the way back from the polling location another student told me that a coworker had her house vandalized. The woman had a No on 8 sign on her lawn, and someone had spray painted "fags" on the side of the house. I guess our area isn't necessarily as blatantly liberal as I thought.

Violence in the Streets

When I looked up Proposition 8 on Google News this morning, I found a significant smattering of stories talking about arrests and violence related to Proposition 8 rallies. Passions are high, as people on both sides of the issue feel extremely strong that they are in the right, and have no room for understanding of the other side of the issue.

A 17 year old female opponent to Proposition 8 was struck in the head and spat on by two men in an altercation between demonstrators:
http://www.mercurynews.com/peninsula/ci_10894076

In Carlsbad, an elderly couple supporting Proposition 8 was punched by a neighbour in an altercation over lawn signs.
http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_10894772

In Sacramento, at least one man was arrested Saturday night as protests got out of hand.
http://www.ktvu.com/politics/17869709/detail.html

I'm sure these stories are the exception rather than the norm, but it leads to an interesting train of thought. What will happen post-election, when Proposition 8 passes or fails? There has been talk of riots if Obama is/is not elected...but what of Proposition 8? On an issue that seems to have no middle ground, will we see an increase in the number of violent incidence against LGBT people or those that support tradition marriage? I think it is certainly more likely than a mass riot in the streets over a black president. I do think we can only hear more of these stories as the day goes on, as demonstrators square off on street corners.

One Last Taste of Propaganda...

Figured with so many new commercials being aired in the last couple weeks, I couldn't leave for election day without throwing up a few more clips for your pre-election enjoyment...

From the No on 8 campaign: Who can go wrong with a little Samuel Jackson? Hits hard on the "proposition 8 is discriminatory" note, arguably better than earlier ads attempting the same thing. I was about to say that I thought that the NO on 8 campaign had finally simplified it's message...but of course the motto of "unfair, uneccessary, wrong" was chopped into just "unfair, wrong" for this commercial. I suppose I will never stop complaining about the lack of a single uniform message from the No campaign.



From the Yes on 8 campaign:An ad in which viewers hear the voice over of a heterosexual married couple talking about the implications of legalized gay marriage on the public school system. A powerful ad, especially with the mention of the fact that both presidental candidates do not support gay marriage...but in my partisan bias, it made me kind of sick to my stomach. That, and I hate the world "tolerate" being using when talking about LGBT people/



And finally, just because I love Ellen:



Happy voting everyone! Please, if you are registered to vote in California, don't forget to vote on this issue! This is an issue where your vote WILL make a difference. Vote No on Proposition 8!

Final Poll Blitz - What Does It All Mean?

Tomorrow is the big day. By this time tomorrow night, the polls in California will have closed, and the fate of same-sex marriage will have been decided (if not yet announced).

Dramatic isn't it?

A number of the most recent polls across the state have shown the gap between those supporting and those opposing Proposition 8 narrowing. The most recent Field Poll puts the gap at 49% No, 44% Yes, and 7% Undecided. The Public Policy Institute of California puts the gap at 52% No, 44% Yes. The gap between Yes/No votes has narrowed since earlier polls taken by both organisations.

http://field.com/fieldpollonline/subscribers/Rls2292.pdf
http://www.ppic.org/main/pressrelease.asp?i=886

Essentially, this could be either side's game on election day. It is a little too close for comfort to call for the no vote with 100% certainty. The issue really at stake here however, is who actually manages to vote tomorrow, not the opinion of likely voters. With wait times at polls expected to be hours long in some locations, one must worry whether liberal voters will actually make it to the polls to vote no. With California undoubtedly going for Obama, will liberal voters bother to wait in long lines to vote on a proposition that might not have any direct affect upon their lives? If I were the No on 8 campaign, I would be VERY nervous about voter turnout tomorrow. Liberal voters giving up at the polls tomorrow could very well enable the supporters of proposition 8 to eek out a victory. We shall have to see. Not much left to do but to cross our fingers, pray for no inclement weather, and hope that those poll lines stay at a managable length.

Confusion Alert Ahead

When I was bumming around the No on 8 website looking at their TV ads, I noticed something very strange. Up until recently, the logo for "Vote No on Prop 8" featured a little green check through the o of no. This is the logo that can still be seen on all merchandise sold in the noonprop8store.com (Coincidentally, this is the lawn sign I have on my dorm room door):

http://www.noonprop8store.com/eshop/10Expand.asp?ProductCode=Prop8-186

However, now the logo for the no on 8 website has a red x through the o of no.

http://www.noonprop8.com/

What is the reason for the change? This is all purely speculative, but it seems as if those behind Equality California/No on Prop 8 realised that a green check is a positive thing, and that in their efforts to get people to vote no, this might become confusing to voters, causing them to vote yes by accident. Personally I think it's a tad silly, but it should be noted that the wording of Prop 8 is somewhat confusing - voters are used to being -for- gay marriage, not -against- a ban on gay marriage. Usually when someone talks about being "pro-gay marriage," one doesn't think about voting against anything.

What I am confused about, is why would Equality California/No on Prop 8 change their logo now, less than 3 weeks before the election, whatever the reason? Thousands of lawn signs, poster, stickers, buttons, t-shirts, and other paraphernalia have been distributed with the 1st version of the logo. Why change the logo now? Doesn't this make a tiny detail even more confusing?

Come on Equality California, please pull yourself together and stop acting like an indecisive spastic puppy. Pick a message, and go with it. Don't confuse voters. Air some stronger TV ads, and stop playing defense. A strong campaign is starting to slowly look weaker, which does not bode well for the outcome of November 4Th.

Bring on the Propaganda: Part III

In the last week, the No on Prop 8 campaign has come out with two new commercials. Though I wish I could say otherwise, they are not that effective. Maybe I've simply become extremely critical since I tend to watch a lot of political ads...but aren't all voters becoming ad-fatigued with less than 3 weeks before the election? Surely the ads need to become snappier, and more hard hitting?

The first commercial up for dissection is the "Lies" ad. Of the two ads, this is my least favorite. The commercial starts off with a bunch of TVs playing the protectmarriage.com ads, (including the most recent), while a voice over declares their statements to be false. The problem with this commercial, is that there is too much going on. I was too busy looking at all the different TVs, and was not paying that much attention to the voice over. If the No on Prop 8 campaign felt that their best tactic was to play defense, (I don't think it is), then why couldn't create a more compelling ad? A little blurb after the TVs part tells the viewer to "keep government out of all our lives" and vote no on prop 8. This is clearly an attempt to reach out to more conservative voters...but what does it have to do with refuting the "lies" of the Yes on 8 campaign? The ad wasn't talking about government entanglement up to this point. All in all, I think the commercial is a failure. With little emotional punch or consistent message, it is an ad viewers won't remember.



The second ad is a little better, though still not good enough in my opinion. The "Unfair, unnecessary, and wrong" ad simply displays quotes from various groups speaking out against Prop 8, with NO on 8 prominently displayed in large letters throughout the commercial. It is not so much that it is a -bad- commercial, I just think it is weak. Gay marriage is such an emotionally charged issue...what happened the commercials that tapped this? The earlier ads "Meet the Thorons" and the ad from Let Freedom Ring released over the summer which much more powerful than this ad. As mentioned earlier, considering the political fatigue non-political junkies must be feeling by this point, wouldn't this be the time to use -more- emotionally charged commercials rather than less? This ad looks like just another political ad like the hundreds that a viewer might see as related to this election. Ads can't just be good, they need to be phenomenal at this point in the campaign season. "Unfair" is just simply not good enough.

Anyone Want to Marry a Goat?

Thanks to a few days off from school away from Internet access, I now have a lot of catching up to do in terms of recent Prop 8 news. Bear with me while I get on that.

First up however, is dealing with piece of mail I received today. That's right folks, I received a letter from the No on Prop 8 campaign, soliciting "urgently needed contributions." I've mentioned before that the supporters of Proposition 8 seem to be doing a better job employing fear tactics to sway voters into voting yes, however this letter is a pretty solid use of fear mongering to garner "no" votes.

The underlying purpose of the letter is to highlight the 3-2 fundraising disadvantage that the opponents of Proposition 8 are facing, and underscore their need for donations to continue an effective media campaign. The more interesting part of the letter emphasises the "dehumanising slander" against LGBT peoples said by supporters of Proposition 8, including this statement from The Family Research Council in Rhode Island:

"A same-sex couple's marriage cannot be recognized because: "Following the logic of the appellants and their supporters, man/animal marriage and man/deceased woman marriage must be permitted under Rhode Island law simply because the General Assembly has not expressly prohibited it."

The letter also included this statement from the April 13 broadcast of Westwood One's The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly:

"So this is just the beginning, ladies and gentlemen, of this crazy gay marriage insanity - it's gonna lead to all kinds of things like this. Courts are gonna be clogged. Every nut in the world is gonna - somebody's gonna come in and say, 'I wanna marry the goat." You'll see it; I guarantee you'll see it."

After one gets done chuckling at the image of a (wo)man/goat marriage, (would the goat need a stool to kiss the bride/groom? Would it need a proxy to repeat the vows?), one can see the "dehumanizing" comparison presented - LGBT people are no better than animals or corpses. While it's hard to call this propaganda letter fear tactics precisely, it is certainly negative advertising. The letter is targeted towards individuals already targeted as being strong opponents of Proposition, and therefore are either LGBT, or avid gay rights advocates. This letter therefore, would probably incite anger within the targeted population, and therefore motivate people to give money to the campaign. Considering the more positive tenor of the television ads, it's interesting to see how the No on Prop campaign chooses to target its base. While it might more publicly present non-threatening image towards the larger heterosexual community, the No on Prop 8 campaign is just as bitterly passionate and negative as the supporters of Proposition 8. Neither side is sticking to the moral high road in this campaign.

A Wedding on the Enterprise

So I have a secret to admit. When I was younger, I was a trekie. For whatever reason, I migrated from a Star Wars obsession to being a fan of the adventures of Captain Kirk, Spock, Sulu, and the rest of the crew.

This is clip is a few weeks old, but I feel it still worth being posted. It features George Takei, aka Mr. Sulu, speaking about his recent marriage to long time partner Brad Altman. Beyond this being a moment to air my slightly embarrassing geek-ish past, it is a great example of gay celebrities using their fame to campaign in opposition to Proposition 8 (the more obvious example of course being Ellen DeGeneres and Portia de Rossi). Takei and Altman's wedding was a calculated affair, and while I do not doubt the couple's love, their wedding was definitely a political move. Of course, Takei is no stranger to California politics, having run for Los Angeles city council, and been on the board of the Southern California Rapid Transit District,in addition to his work as an LGBT rights activist. Still, I believe he is a classic example of celebrity politics, without which the LGBT rights agenda would most likely still be years away from even the possibility of legalized same-sex marriage.

Newt Weighs In

So when I was pulling the Vote Yes on Prop 8 commercial off youtube yesterday, I stumbled upon an ad in which Newt Gingrich weighs in on the legal angle of the Proposition 8 debate. While I might not support Proposition 8 myself, Gingrich does present an interesting point about the role of judges in legislative matters. Should "appointed lawyers" engage in legal activism? Should judges be legislating from the bench? Should 4 judges be able to overturn the will of the majority?





I would argue that one of the judicial branch's major obligations is to weigh in upon this type of issue. The role of the judicial branch -is- to protect against majority tyranny. If it were not for this major check on majority opinion, how would the rights of -any- minority be protected? The judges interpreted the California Constitution to mean equal rights for all of the state's citizens, not just those who have legislative power/money. In addition, the California Constitution is above any other California law, and laws made in opposition to it -must- be overturned. If we were to state that judges should not review laws, and should not take an activist stance, then what is the purpose of having the California Constitution as the supreme law of the state in the first place? It becomes toothless and devoid of meaning.

In a nutshell, legal activism is necessary to maintain the balance of power between the legislative and judicial branches of government. The California Supreme Court's decision earlier this year is simply an example of the Framer's vision of government at work.

Bring on the Propaganda: Round Two

Last week protectmarriage.com and the Vote Yes on Prop 8 aired their first major tv ad in California. I have to say, I think it is a brilliant ad. The ad starts of with a clip of San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom at a press conference telling the world that "this door is wide open now. It's gonna happen, whether you like it or not." The ad continues into a discussion of the legality of the California Supreme Court's decision to allow gay marriage, even going so far as to pull a Pepperdine Law Professor to talk about the possible/actual fallout of allowing gay marriage - people suing over personal beliefs, churches losing their tax exemption status, and gay marriage being taught in schools. One of the last things a viewer hears is Mayor Newsom's strident statement that gay marriage will happen now "whether you like it or not."



Basically, this ad targets the major possible fears that undecided heterosexual voters might have about allowing gay marriage, preying upon voters' homophobia. (Will the schools be turning my child gay? Will my church be compromised?) Inadvertently, I'd argue that Mayor Newsom did more damage then good with his remarks, as now the supporters of Proposition 8 have a sound byte to heighten "fear of the gay takeover" in voters. Never mind a catchy slogan, "Whether you like it or not" will continue to reverberate in a voter's head long after the ad has ended.

It is more likely that a voter will remember a frightening phrase (and let's face it, even if you like Mayor Newsom, he is a bit abrasive, then a soft spoken appeal to maternal/paternal pride. Scare tactics work better than tugging at heart strings, so at this stage I'd say the score is Vote Yes: 1. Vote No:0.

One month left...

Google Takes a Stand

This past Friday, the co-founder and president of Google, Sergey Brin, posted on the official Google blog that the company stood in opposition to California's Proposition 8. While I'd argue that this declaration does not have a great deal of direct political implications, it is interesting on a larger scale, in looking at the role that corporations should play in our political system. As a company that employs workers of all creeds, orientations, and political beliefs, should Google take a stance on such a divisive social issue? Brin acknowledges that it is strange that the company is taking an official position, but like many of those against Proposition 8, the company sees the proposition as an attack upon equality.

While it could be fun to debate the ethics of a corporation taking sides on a political social issue, in my view the larger point of Google's declaration is emphasize the importance of this proposition not just within California, but within the entire United States. Everyone is watching California to see what will happen. California will be a barometer for the future of gay rights within the United States. It's really no wonder that such a forward thinking company would try to have a small bit of influence over a proposition of this magnitude.

http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2008/09/our-position-on-californias-no-on-8.html

A Family Plea

This past week the first TV commerical from the No on Prop 8 campaign hit the airwaves. The message? A elderly heterosexual couple speaking about how they would like their gay daughter to be able to marry whomever she wants, for they love her as much as they love their other two children. Like the commerical I blogged about put out by the Let California Ring campaign, this commercial seems to be appealing to the heterosexual voter demographic. Unlike the Let California Ring ad however, this commercial is targeted at parents, especially those with grown children, who can empathize with the couple show in the clip. Most parents love their children, and want them to be happy in life. This couple's plea on behalf of their daughter could indeed resonate well with an elderly demographic that tends to be more religious than others, simply by playing on the bonds of family. I think this will prove to be a very effective commerical, though I may not be able to prove that statement beyond the results of November 4th.

Can the Polls Be Trusted?

Of course, right after I said in my previous post that fundraising advantage held by those in favor of Proposition 8, a new Field Poll is released stating that the opponents to Proposition 8 are gaining a larger lead. As of July, 51% of voters planned to vote no, with 42% planning to vote yes. As of yesterday, these numbers have changed to 55% and 38% respectivly. Was my comment in my previous post far too pessimistic?

I do not necessarily think so. Liberal voters are more likely to answer questions posed by pollers. Also, with an issue that can be framed as one of "equality and freedom," voters may or may not answer truthfully to pollers, especially if they feel that they will be judged somehow for their answer. Voters that do not have especially firm beliefs about the issue of same-sex marriage might feel uncomfortable saying that they plan to vote yes on Proposition 8 if they feel that they might have to defend their position. There end up being a few factors that could cause that 17% gap to be a lot smaller in reality.

Maybe I am being too pessimistic. But I would be cautions about celebrating any supposed "lead" when it is about an issue that is accessible to all voters (arguable, most voters can have some idea of what marriage should be), as opposed to a more complicated issue such as the economy or healthcare reform. Many people can draw their own conclusions about the Proposition, based on very little understanding of the issue at hand...and still think that they understand all the factors that are involved. A voter may think about the issue , decide he or she will vote no, but upon entering the voting booth on November 4th the voter may remember a sermon delivered by his or her pastor declaiming the "evils of homosexulaity," and choose to vote yes.

All in all? I like the polling numbers. But I would not jump up and down with glee just yet.

Field Poll: http://field.com/fieldpollonline/subscribers/Rls2287.pdf

Bring on the Propaganda!

No discussion of Proposition 8 would be complete without looking at the propaganda being thrown at California residents. But who is the propaganda really targeting? Both sides of the debate are spending their money and resources trying to sway undecided voters towards voting one way or another. More specifically, they are trying to target heterosexual voters, who may or may not have had any contact with people from the LGBT community, and therefore may not have concrete views on the issue.

For example, a friend of mine is an organizer for the Vote No on Prop 8 campaign, and her main job is to run phonebanks on Oxy's campus in an attempt to get students to give voters the "facts" of the proposition in order to convince them to vote no. The majority of the people that she calls do not have a firm stance on the issue of same-sex marriage, and many do not understand what the issue really even is.

Putting any biases of my own aside, I find it very interesting how both sides on the issue have chosen to frame the idea of same-sex marriage to market a specific viewpoint to heterosexual voters. Those in favor of Prop 8 state that it would protect the sanctity marriage, and not allow California to start down that slippery slope that would lead to churches being forced to marry homosexual couples, children being brainwashed and 'taught the gay", and eventually lead to other moral depravities such as marriage between men and animals. The pro-Prop 8 side has chosen fear tactics, though usually garnished with a nice, happy picture of a smiling heterosexual family. Through these tactics, voters somehow think that their marriage might be affected, and therefore plan to vote yes.

On the other side of the coin, those against Prop 8 are playing the equality card, telling voters that Prop 8 would be a crime against the great ideals of freedom and equality that make up the backbone of our country. A tv commercial put out over the summer by Let California Ring shows a heterosexual couple trying to get married, but things keep going wrong to prevent the bride from reaching her husband to be. Through this commercial, Let California Ring is playing upon voter's empathy, making them think about how awful it would be if they themselves could not marry who they loved, and therefore plan to vote no.




So which tactic is more effective? To date, the supporters of Prop 8 have out raised the opponents 3-2. With more money, comes more access to voters, and more chances to sway the out come of the election. Being in a very liberal environment, I have a skewed view of how the two campaigns are functioning - I have never seen a supporting of Prop 8 campaigning around Oxy. However, I would argue that the fear tactics of the supporters of Prop 8 are more effective for a simple reason - people vote on issues that they think affect them. A voter is more likely to vote to protect themselves, than to vote to protect the freedom of others. Heterosexual voters who have no contact with those in the LGBT community do not have an access point to the issue, and therefore may not be as motivated to go to the polls that day, especially since their vote for the Presidential election does not really matter (since California will go blue). On November 4Th we very well might be seeing a large step backwards for the gay rights movement.

Does Feinstein's Anti-endorsement Matter?

On September 12, (this past Friday), Senator Dianne Feinstein of the U.S. Senate released a statement declaring that "as a matter of equality and fairness" she was opposed to Proposition 8. As a representative from California to the U.S. Senate, obviously it is expected that she would make public her opinion on a crucial proposition in her state's upcoming election. But does Feinstein's statement really make a difference towards swaying the votes of undecided California voters? Within the state legislature, California has twice already passed legislation making same-sex marriage legal, with the margin growing larger the second time around. (The fact that Gov. Schwarzenegger vetoed the bill both times is somewhat of a moot point for the sake of this particular discussion). This demonstrates that, at least at the state level, that the representatives for California are significantly in favor of gay marriage.

Yet, there was a voter initiative to place a proposition on the ballot this November that would change the California Constitution to ban same-sex marriage once again. Clearly there are people with money that do not support same-sex marriage, and thus have the resources to launch a campaign to stop it. So the question is, does Feinstein's anti-endorsement make a difference to voters? Those voters in California that are conservative on this matter most likely already disapprove of the opinions of the Democratic state legislature, and arguably won't listen to an argument made by yet another official in their government they don't know. No matter how important Feinstein is, she's still just another liberal Democrat, who could be expected to speak out in favor of gay marriage. Who is the senator swaying with her impersonal statement? I would argue that the only way to convince voters to vote no on proposition 8 would be to talk to them one on one. Let volunteers put a familiar accessible face on the issue, and not simply let the lofty words of a woman most residents will never meet be the only method of persuasion used.

So what, in the end, is the purpose of Feinstein's anti-endorsement? To make the "Vote No on Prop 8" base feel good about themselves. Equality for All gets to post a front page story on its website about how yet another famous and/or important person is against Proposition 8, and all the volunteers get a warm fuzzy feeling inside as if their long hours canvassing and phonebanking mean something. Good for them - someone give those volunteers a cookie.

So What is Prop 8 Anyways?

Proposition 8 is a proposition that is on the California ballot in November, proposing a change to the state constitution to state that "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." This most recent development in California politics dealing with gay marriage is preceded by a tumultuous recent history.

Back in 2000, the citizens of California passed another Proposition 22, also known as the Defense of Marriage Act, which stated that only the marriages of heterosexual couples would be recognized in California. This was a result of fears that same-sex couples would marry in other states, then move to California and force the state government to represent their union. It was also a redundant proposition, as a DOMA had already been passed at the federal level in 1996.

Then in Feburary of 2004, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom begain to give marriage licenses to same-sex couples. This was quickly halted when in August the California Supreme Court invalidated all same sex marriages on the grounds that the Mayor did not have the right to issue those licenses against California law. Multiple lawsuits followed.

In 2005 and again in 2007, the California State Legislature passed a bill that eliminated the heterosexual gender requirments on marriage, however Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed the billboth times, stating that it went against Proposition 22. The only way that Proposition 22 could be reversed was if the courts ruled it to be unconstitutional, or the people voted to stike down the proposition.

The end result was the former option, as on May 15, 2008, after reviewing the lawsuits from back in 2004 the California Supreme Court ruled that Proposition 22 went against the California Consitution, and was therefore struck down as unconstitutional. This allowed same-sex couples to marry under California law, and to recieve the same rights and benefits as any other heterosexual couple.

This leads us back to Proposition 8, and the election on Novemeber 4th, 2008. If passed, Proposition 8 would change the California Constitution to define marriage as only being between a man and a woman. This is different from Proposition 22, as Proposition 22 was part of California Family Code. Proposition 8 would change the California Constitution, thus eliminated the California Supreme Court's argument for striking down Proposition 22.

Will Proposition 8 pass? As it is a very important to those on both sides of the issue, volunteers and funding are being thrown out into the effort to convince voters to vote one way or another. A field poll taken July 18th, 2008, by the Field Research Corporation stated that 42% of voters intending to vote would vote yes on on Proposition 8, whereas 51% said that they would vote no, with 7% undecided. Obviously, the outcome of this election where Proposition 8 is concerned is not yet a given in one direction or the other. Will campaigns like Vote No on Prop 8 and Protectmarriage.com affect the outcome? We shall have to see.