2009 to now: Currently active efforts to
overturn Prop. 8 by repeal or a lawsuit.

Sign carried by attendee at a 2010-Summer National Organization for Marriage rally. It cites Leviticus 20:13 which is rendered in the King James Version as: "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." It has variously been interpreted:

• By religious conservatives as calling for capital punishment for all same-sex sexual activity in ancient Israel, and
  
  
• By religious liberals and secularists as ambiguous, either:
  • Calling for the execution of men engaging in same-sex ritual sex with male prostitutes in Pagan temples, or
  • Banning two men from engaging in sexual activity in a woman's bed.

There are not too many male prostitutes employed in North American temples today .

Option 1: Attempting to repeal Proposition 8 with another California citizen initiative:

• Create a new Proposition to repeal Prop. 8

• Would a state citizen initiative on same-sex marriage (SSM) in California or another state have passed in 2012-NOV?

Option 2: Perry v. Schwarzenegger (later renamed Hollingsworth v. Perry) lawsuit to challenge the constitutionality of Prop. 8

• 2009: The trial in U.S. District Court:

  • 2009-MAY to JUL: Launching the lawsuit
    
    
  • Initial reactions; public viewing of the trial
    
    
    • Conflicting world views; future trends in public support/opposition to SSM
      
      
  • Comments before the trial: slogans, remarks, webmaster looses cool
    
    
  • The Southern Baptists' Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission's Amicus Curiae
    
    
  • Testimony at the trial
    
    
  • Previous Supreme Court cases vaguely similar to the Prop 8 case
    
    

• 2010-AUG-04: District Court Judge Vaughn Walker's ruling:

  • Part 1: Summary; The case for & against Prop 8; The trial; Question 1 of 3
    
    
  • Part 2: Questions 2 & 3; Findings of fact
    
    
  • Part 3: Conclusions Prop. 8 violates the U.S. Constitution's due process clause
    
    
  • Part 4: Conclusions Prop. 8 violates the U.S. Constitution's equal protection clause
    
    
  • Negative reactions to the court ruling Judicial bias & tyranny; a call to impeach
    
    
    • More negative reactions
      
      
  • Positive reactions to the court ruling
    
    
  • 2011-JUN: Failed attempt by supporters of Prop 8 to appeal Judge Walker's ruling and preserve Prop. 8
    
    
  • The U.S. Constitution's equal protection clause and the legalization of same-sex marriage (SSM).
    
    

• The appeal of Judge Walker's ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit:

  • Developments after Judge Walker's ruling:
    • 2010-AUG-04 to AUG-12: Appeal launched; stay installed; stay removed.
      
      
    • 2010-AUG-16 to AUG-30: Injunction; Pacific Justice Institute petition.
      
      
    • 2010-SEP to NOV: Consequences of Judge Walker's ruling. Appeal to Court of Appeals.
      
      
  • Hearings at the 9th U.S. Court of Appeals:
  • 2010-DEC-06 Part 1: 1st. day of hearings before the 9th circuit court of appeals. Terms used.
    
    
  • 2010-DEC-06 Part 2: 1st. day of hearings, cont'd. Statement by religious leaders. Range of court decision.
    
    
  • 2011-FEB to SEP: Legal status of ProtectMarriage.com. The current will of California voters on SSM.
    
    
  • 2011-SEP to NOV: The California Supreme Court determines ProtectMarriage.com's status.
    
    
  • 2011-DEC: A three judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals holds hearing re: constitutionality of Prop. 8
    
    
  • 2012-FEB: Panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals finds Proposition 8 unconstitutional. Reactions
    
    
  • 2012-FEB to MAR: More reactions to the 9th Circuit ruling
    
    
  • 2012-MAR to now: Appeals court refuses to review the case. Case appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court
    
    
  • Appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS):
  • 2012-DEC: Reactions to the U.S. Supreme Court's acceptance of the case. Speculation on the court's future ruling
    
    
  • 2012/2013: Speculation on the court's future ruling (Cont'd). Oral arguments scheduled
    
    
  • 2013: Amicus Curia briefs filed with the U.S. Supreme Court
    
    
  • 2013-FEB/MAR: Unusual interpretation of the case by the National Organization for Marriage. March organized
    
    
  • 2013-FEB: More Amicus Curia briefs filed. Probable impact of Supreme Court's decision
    
    
  • 2013-FEB: Amici Curiae brief filed by Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and 19 other religious groups
    
    
  • 2013-MAR: More speculation on what the Supreme Court decision will be
    
    
  • 2013-MAR-26: U.S. Supreme Court justices heard oral argument: Part 1   Part 2
    
    
• Polling data on SSM in California:
  • Support for, and opposition to, SSM. Webmaster's comments

Home page > "Hot" topics > Homosexuality > Couples > California > here