It’s been weirdly under-reported, but Proposition 8, the November ballot initiative that seeks to amend the California constitution to ban same-sex marriage, had its official language changed earlier this month. It used to read as follows:
LIMIT ON MARRIAGE. CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
Amends the California Constitution to provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: The measure would have no fiscal effect on state or local governments. This is because there would be no change to the manner in which marriages are currently recognized by the state.
What’s going to appear on the ballots in November is much more accurate, and makes it clear that voting for it means actively taking away existing rights:
ELIMINATES RIGHT OF SAME-SEX COUPLES TO MARRY.
INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
Changes California Constitution to eliminate right of same-sex couples to marry. Provides that only a marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.
Fiscal Impact: Over the next few years, potential revenue loss, mainly sales taxes, totaling in the several tens of millions of dollars, to state and local governments. In the long run, likely little fiscal impact to state and local governments.
I would have added, “Voting for this means you’re a dick.” But the new language is certainly an improvement.
As I noted earlier, the polling indicates that the initiative is struggling: just 42% are in favor, a huge drop from 2000’s similar initiative. So its backers are already falling back on FUD tactics, the most recent being kindergartners. They warn —
If the gay marriage ruling is not overturned, teachers will be required to teach young children there is no difference between gay marriage and traditional marriage.
In the words of Mrs. Lovejoy: “Think about the children!”
Nevermind that the statement is factually wrong. Also, when do public school teachers give lessons on marriage, period? And are there popsicle sticks and yarn involved?
It’s easy to be glib, but dangerous. The proponents of Prop. 8 — many of them out-of-state — have deep pockets and a long history of stirring shit up in their favor. That’s why in lieu of a traditional wedding registry, we signed up with Equality California, which is spearheading the opposition campaign. Frankly, we’d rather have justice than a toaster.1
But worst case scenario — what happens if it passes? That’s still up for debate.
The consensus is that existing marriages couldn’t be voided, since they were legal at the time they were enacted. And to paraphrase the late Charlton Heston: you can pry my ring off my cold, dead hand. But there are reasons to believe the amendment might still get considerable court scrutiny even if it passes. The legal lingo about “suspect classes” is a bit head-swirling, but can be summarized thusly: imagine an amendment that said African-Americans couldn’t marry. You’d have a guaranteed court battle.
. . .
In much happier news, my friend Andrew Lippa just wed his longtime squeeze David Bloch, and the New York Times has a great piece on it. I hadn’t realized that the Times now does video interviews, but wow, it’s great. You get a much better sense of the couple when you hear them tell their own story. You’d have to be pretty hard-hearted not to want them married.
Andrew is a genius composer and lyricist, and I’ve been fortunate to be working on a project with him for the past two years. Mazel Tov to them both.
- If you’re itching for some righteous equality but don’t have another couple to gift, the registry is still there. John and Michael August, under “J,” strangely enough. ↩