Prop 8 Title Controversy Has Been Eliminated

Proposition 8: “Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry.” That’s the ballot label voters will see at the polls on Nov. 4.

After the Third District Court of Appeal ruled against them in a one-sentence opinion issued late Friday, Prop 8 supporters said today that they won’t ask the Supreme Court to re-write the title they consider prejudicial.

“We intend to leave the final outcome to voters,” said Jennifer Kerns, a spokeswoman for the Yes on 8 campaign. The decision is a win for Attorney General Jerry Brown, whose office wrote the Prop 8 title and summary (.pdf).

The fight over Prop 8 now shifts to the race for campaign cash. The Yes on 8 campaign reported receiving a staggering $1.1 million in contributions between Friday and Sunday, according to the Secretary of State’s Web site. Five attorneys donated $5,000 each to the Yes side last week: William Bunker, a partner with Knobbe Martens Olson & Bear in Orange County; Ronald Packard of Packard, Packard & Johnson in Los Altos; a D. Walton of (we’re wondering if this might be Jones Hall) in Walnut Creek; Gregory Weeks from Rancho Santa Fe; and Dean Criddle, a partner in Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe’s San Francisco office.

The No on 8 campaign disclosed more than $214,000 over the last three days, including $5,000 from attorney Joan Mack of Caldwell Leslie & Proctor in Los Angeles.

—  Cheryl Miller

Comments

[Chino Blanco]

Considering that ProtectMarriage.com has decided NOT to appeal the ballot language, what chance do you really see for Prop 8 to pass? I just don't see a majority of Californians voting YES on a proposition titled ELIMINATES RIGHT OF SAME-SEX COUPLES TO MARRY.

Once the churches realize that Prop 8 is an almost guaranteed loser, are they going to do the right thing and let their members know?

If not, what happens after Prop 8 loses 40-60 (or worse), and then the members find out that the churches were privy all along to internal polling that predicted a crushing defeat? Do the members get their money back?

Or do they get stuck paying for ads that were run by a campaign that knew it was going to lose but ran them anyway!

[Erin]

Prop 8 isn't a religious issue. Supporters of gay marriage want to equate a homosexual relationship with a heterosexual relationship. They are not the same. Biology brings a man and a woman together, not just for physical gratification or emotional togetherness, but to reproduce and then to raise the children that come to that union. No homosexual relationship can do that.

Gay couples already had all the rights and privileges accorded to married heterosexual couples in the state of California before the Supreme Court ruled in favor of gay marriage. What do they gain by now being married? They gain the support and defense of the state, who will now defend and promote gay marriage, in the school curricula and business practices.

How far will it go? The ruling by the CA Supreme Court today on North Coast Women's Care Medical Group v. Superior Court (Benitez), S142892, gives us a pretty good glimpse at the future.... and it's not pretty.

[No]

Erin, you're right. We should also make sure that infertile people and old people can't get married, since the purpose of marriage is to raise children. You do realize that gay couples have & raise children, right?

[starwise]

This youtube was awesome. It talks about how we can all live in peace and love with prop.8 stuff http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vI-GjWY-WlA