California still has an anti-gay marriage law on the books. Voters uld remove next year

PROP 8 LG EXPLAED: WHY GAY MARRIAGE WILL RUME CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA VOTERS WILL BE ASKED TO REAFFIRM GAY MARRIAGE PROTECTNS ON 2024 BALLOT
IS GAY MARRIAGE LEGAL CALIFORNIA?
CALIFORNIA STILL HAS AN ANTI-GAY MARRIAGE LAW ON THE BOOKS. VOTERS ULD REMOVE NEXT YEAR
CALIFORNIA STILL HAS AN ANTI-GAY MARRIAGE LAW ON THE BOOKS. VOTERS ULD REMOVE NEXT YEAR

PROP 8 LG EXPLAED: WHY GAY MARRIAGE WILL RUME CALIFORNIA

California voters will be asked to affirm gay marriage rights on the 2024 ballot followg Prop. 8 ncerns about the state nstutn. * did california legalize gay marriage *

“For the hundreds of thoands of Californians gay and lbian hoeholds who are managg their day-to-day liv, this cisn affirms the full legal protectns and safeguards I believe everyone serv. In holdg that Prop 8 nnot stand bee vlat the equal protectn and due procs rights of California’s lbian and gay upl, this cisn adds to the growg nsens urts and legislatur across the untry that there are no good reasons for excludg same-sex upl om marriage.

“The urt examed the range of exc ed by anti-gay groups to jtify this ernment discrimatn agast same-sex upl. The ttimony of leadg experts on everythg om child velopment to adult psychology to the public sts of anti-gay discrimatn laid bare the misrmatn and outright li that anti-gay groups have been phg on the public. It doubtls will help more people see that anti-gay discrimatn marriage is stctive and unjtifiable.

CALIFORNIA VOTERS WILL BE ASKED TO REAFFIRM GAY MARRIAGE PROTECTNS ON 2024 BALLOT

District Judge Vghn Walker led [[Read the cisn]()] the su filed by two gay upl who claimed the ban vlated their civil rights. Gay rights advot and civil libertarians say the battle is a fight for equal rights, while opponents, cludg many relig nservativ, see same-sex marriage as a threat to the “tradnal fay.

“Proposn 8 fails to advance any ratnal basis sglg out gay men and lbians for nial of a marriage license.

IS GAY MARRIAGE LEGAL CALIFORNIA?

Wh over 13 ln vot st, California voters approve Proposn 8 on November 4, 2008, amendg the state’s nstutn to ban same-sex marriage.Only months earlier, May 2008, the California Supreme Court had emed the state’s ban on same-sex marriage unnstutnal, makg California the send state the untry to legalize gay marriage. Californian voters received robolls om former print Bill Clton askg them to vote no on the measure, while actors om the televisn show “Ugly Betty” argued Spanish-language TV spots that votg no “is not about beg gay or straight,” but “about beg Amerin.”The Protect Marriage mpaign supportg Proposn 8 nstantly voked the “far-reachg nsequenc” of legal gay marriage, particularly the implitn that school curriculums would be required to teach that gay marriage is “the same as tradnal marriage.” Pollster David Fleischer, his analysis of the electn rults, found that the greatt shift toward “Y” among uncid voters was “among parents wh children unr 18 livg at home—many of them whe Democrats,” who feared the effects of legal gay marriage on their children’s public tn. READ MORE: The Supreme Court Rulgs That Have Shaped Gay Rights AmeriAlso on This Day History November | 4.

SACRAMENTO — More than 18 years after Gav Newsom fied feral law by issug marriage licens to same-sex upl as San Francis mayor, Print Bin is on the cp of signg legislatn that ensur gay marriag are regnized by the feral ernment and every state the natn. “As much as this is a very important issue to gay and lbian people who are marriag or look forward to beg marriag, ” Michelson said, “I doubt that is the issue that is gog to be at the top of people’s mds when to future printial rac.

The Supreme Court lg on a California law known as Proposn 8 me down to a legal technily but has huge practil effect — rtorg gay marriage the natn’s most populo urt led that proponents of Proposn 8, a ban on gay marriage passed by California voters 2008, did not have the legal right to fend the law the feral Jtice John Roberts, wrg for the urt, said that the proponents — the people who put Proposn 8 on the ballot — had no “personal stake” fendg , at least no more than other ordary cizens of California.

To have a se, the standard says, you have to show California Supreme Court led May 2008 that gay upl had a right to marry. Six months later, Proposn 8 passed wh 52 percent of the vote, haltg gay marriage gay upl then sued feral urt to overturn the ban.

The Supreme Court said Wednday that they had no lg was important not jt for what did — clear the way for the rumptn of gay marriage California — but for what didn’t do.