Prop 8 and the Initiative Process
When you consider how much momentum and money for Prop 8 came from out of state, and with anywhere from 40 to 70 percent of the Yes funding coming from Mormon church members, it's not a surprise that some public backlash against Prop 8's passage has been directed at the church. This morning Thom Hartmann fielded comments and questions on his radio show about the connection between Prop 8 and the church, about political motivations -- in all, addressing numerous aspects from various points of view . To be fair, other groups, significant financial interests and sources were involved with promoting Prop 8. And obviously, not all Mormons or churches support Prop 8. Generalizations are always tenuous. With or without the church's involvement, the heavily-funded campaign behind Prop 8 illuminates some of the problems inherent in the complex initiative process in California -- a process often not organically driven from the grassroots of California's constituency. It also calls into question the procedures through which a fundamental Constitutional change (potentially a revision of California's Constitution) can be implemented. It remains to be seen if the legal challenges to Prop 8 are upheld.
Hiram Johnson, a California Governor and Senator in the early 1900s, helped bring the initiative process to California as a way for citizens to have some direct form of redress against entrenched power, most notably the railroad interests at that time. The reforms included the power of initiative, referendum and recall*. They were intended to combat the financial corruption that dominated politics at the time.
We saw political and financial interests playing a critical part in the recall of Governor Gray Davis, for instance -- with questionable backers shipped in from out of state. Paid petition circulators and misleading campaigns are often employed. The result of Prop 8 was essentially an undermining of rights -- rescinding them from one group of citizens, which is a debatable interpretation of original intent of the progressives who instituted these changes to uphold the rights of Californians, not to eliminate them.
In addition to the cultural and legal issues evoked by Proposition 8, there's the possibility for economic effects within California -- depending on how the scene plays out. The San Francisco Chronicle today has a piece about the immediate and potential long-term economic effects of the prop's passage. The article quotes a number of local proprietors already affected by the loss in business, and speculates on future ramifications and bad PR in a state known as a gay and lesbian tourist destination.
Opposition to Prop 8 is fueling protests throughout California, most notably in Los Angeles and San Francisco. You can get details at protest8.blogspot.com.
* The recall was a "precautionary measure by which a recalcitrant official can be removed" - Hiram Johnson
For historical perspective see Loving v. Virginia -- the civil rights case which declared Virginia's anti-miscegenation law unconstitutional. And Mildred Loving's comments on the right to marry.
See Photos of Protests in both San Francisco and Sacramento.
Pictured: Hiram Johnson
Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons
Comments
The fact ignored by this is that the Yes on 8 side WAS initiated and funded by Californians.
I would love it if they banned out of state contributions because that would have meant that the Yes side would have had the advantage on the money side.
With the No side raising over 13 million more than the Yes side a ban from out of state money would have negated completely that advantage for the No side.
Simply because a Californian is Mormon doesn’t make them less a citizen of California, or less privileged to engage the political machinations.
Full of HATE…lol… that’s the lable they are trying to smear against my faith. During the election you never had MORMONS targetting and boycotting any gay friendly business/religion for opposing prop 8. It’s funny that their bitterness has turned to madness because they had an embarrassing loss.
I agree… complaining about money coming in from out of CA… get real… NO on 8 raised MORE money than YES on 8. Just because their campaigne wasn’t as successful, they want roll around the floor and through a huge tantrum like a 3 year old. EXCUSE my FELLOW Mormons and other AMAZING CHRISTIANS brothers and sisters for BEING so ORGANIZED and EFFECTIVE in our cause!!!
MY CHURCH as an entity did not contribute massive amounts of founds to the cause; however, it was individual FAMILIES (non-Mormon and Mormon a like) who believed in the cause and HAD THE MEANS to CONTRIBUTE. A MORMON’s BANK ACCOUNT belongs to him or her and NOT the CHURCH.
Homosexual ACTIVIST are the BIGOTS… CRY.. CRY.. CRY.. CRY.. A FREAKIN RIVER!!!!
My RELIGION has BEEN under PERSECUTION from DAY 1 and we have been reaping blessings from up above ever since and will continue to be GRACED by GOD’s eternal love for FAMILIES!!!
(the eternal definition of FAMILY: HUSBAND and WIFE blessed with children)
I’ve been a tad perplexed by this idea that the Prop 8 initiative was somehow skewed by the involvement of the Mormons and out-of-staters. First, every initiative in every state allows money to flow across its state’s lines — money equals speech and free expression. It has ever been thus, and yet the No on 8 forces are now complaining that First Amendment expression is somehow “inorganic.” That’s a very odd double-standard and one that strikes me as, frankly, a little silly. Remember a few days ago when everyone understood that Barack Obama’s hundreds of millions of money raised for his campaign meant that he had enthusiastic, broad support from across the country? Why doesn’t the same apply with Prop 8?
Furthermore, California is considered a trendsetter state. The reason Prop 8 attracted so much national attention was because the results were intended — by BOTH sides of the debate — to be a harbinger for what would happen across the country. Of course money and interest are going to flow into California from non-California sources, because non-Californians had a stake in the outcome.
All that said, the overwhelming amount of money that helped fund the “Yes on 8″ initiative came from individual California citizens (who happen to be members of the Church of Jesus Christ).
I don’t know if Prop 8 would have passed without LDS families donating their time and money, BUT I do know that once the voting process is complete, then all of protests just make the “No on prop 8″ crowd look childish. Waa waa was…”I didn’t get my way” You lost AGAIN. What’s that…..30 states that have voted AGAINST same sex marriage? I’ve got a suggestion…..put it on the ballot yourself and actually have the people vote on it again….instead of having some leftist judge overturn the will of the people.
Please correct the first sentence which is incorrect and misleading.
(1) YES donations were largely funded by IN STATE donors, with a minority from out of state (29.7%). The NO side actually had a higher percentage of out-of-state donations (31.1%).
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/politics/cal/la-moneymap,0,5374284.htmlstory
(2)”funding coming from the Mormon church or its members.” This is misleading. The Mormon Church donated a grand total of $2,078.97, and that was for in-kind donation to cover the travel expenses of church leaders who went to California to meet with the coalition.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/11/06/state/n173414S99.DTL
Dropping By said: “I’ve been a tad perplexed by this idea that the Prop 8 initiative was somehow skewed by the involvement of the Mormons and out-of-staters.”
It is “skewed” according to the original intent of Hiram Johnson and progressives who brought the initiative process to California as a way for citizens to challenge financial and political corruption through direct democratic action. The intiative was not seen as a tool that would, essentially, be used by powerful interests in the way the modern initiative system has evolved.
Because Proposition 8 actually revokes an existing right for a group of citizens in our state — and may indeed, challenge the equal protection elements of our state Constitution (the document which ostensibly protects all California citizens from discrimination) — I believe it’s fair to assess the sources and motivations of a measure that dramatically alters and takes away civil rights for one group of those citizens.
MORMON n PROUD wrote: “My RELIGION has BEEN under PERSECUTION from DAY 1″
And this is why it is so difficult for many on the “No on 8″ side to understand why a group that has been itself victimized historically by discrimination, would have interest in fighting against the civil rights of another group of citizens.
Californian writes: “funding coming from the Mormon church or its members” is misleading
Thank you. The post was amended for clarity. The Mormon church, along with other religious groups, was heavily involved in the promotion of Prop 8.
“Please correct the first sentence which is incorrect and misleading.
(1) YES donations were largely funded by IN STATE donors, with a minority from out of state (29.7%). The NO side actually had a higher percentage of out-of-state donations (31.1%).” - Californian
It’s probably worth checking when the No On 8 campaign started receiving money from out of state - I think you’ll find that a lot of the out-of-state donations were given within the last three weeks before the election, in response to the huge amounts of out-of-state donations coming in to the Yes On 8 campaign. If the Yes On 8 campaign hadn’t had those donations, the No On 8 campaign wouldn’t have gone looking for them either.
“Please correct the first sentence which is incorrect and misleading.
(1) YES donations were largely funded by IN STATE donors, with a minority from out of state (29.7%). The NO side actually had a higher percentage of out-of-state donations (31.1%).” - Californian
Perhaps you should check when the donations came in first? I think you’ll find that most of the out-of-state donations to No On 8 came in within the last three weeks, and were given in response to the Yes On 8 campaign’s out-of-state donations. If Yes On 8 hadn’t already been going for such huge out-of-state donations, the No On 8 campaign would not have done so either.
This article is pretty dumb. So many things overlooked: 1) More money came in from out of state on the “No” side than “Yes” side (LA Times as source). 2) Last I heard, votes are cast in ballot boxes, not over TV and radio waves. 3) The “Mormon money” predominantly came from in-state Mormons, you know, California residents. The actual church contributed no funds. 4) Ousting Gray Davis was a very good thing, since he was both corrupt and incompetent.
Rick wrote: “1) More money came in from out of state on the “No” side than “Yes” side (LA Times as source).”
You’ll note the post suggests momentum and money. The increased complexity arises from the fact that, as many have stated, Prop 8 fundamentally alters the state Constitution to deprive a group of citizens a right afforded to other citizens. I believe this makes the increased scrutiny germane to the discussion. Lawsuits currently filed against Prop 8 challenge the Constitutional validity.
The actual church contributed no funds.
The church contributed a small amount to ProtectMarriage.com. But the influence of the church was significant, hence the reference to the public backlash.
Ousting Gray Davis was a very good thing, since he was both corrupt and incompetent.
Again, the point of the post to was to suggest that the initiative process was and is subject to special interest money and motive, which dilutes the original intent. With respect to the recall, there was considerable controversy at the time owing to political agendas and practices.
Is this author saying that Religious people can’t donate to a political cause or proposition?
Should we ban all Religious people from the United States.
How dare anyone have a different view than the Gays. You must accept their lifestyle and acknowledge that two females or two males make just as good as parents as a male and a female. Gender is irrelevant as far as parenting goes.
How dare Californians not drink the koolaid.
John S. writes: “Is this author saying that Religious people can’t donate to a political cause or proposition?
Should we ban all Religious people from the United States.”
It’s a fallacy of logic to jump from the topic of political interests in the initiative process, to suggesting this means anyone is interested in banning ‘all religious people from the United States.’ That’s simply inaccurate.
The fact is, Proposition 8 is by DEFINITION exactly what you describe as appropriate. Fit the pieces of the puzzle together SF. The electorate had a grievance against the Supreme Court of California taking away their voice.
Dissenting Opinion of In Re Marriage: “[T]he majority engages in faulty constitutional analysis and violates the separation of powers.” (Justice Baxter)
Dissenting Opinion of In Re Marriage: “In a democracy, the people should be given a fair chance to set the pace of change without judicial interference. That is the way democracies work.” (Justice Corrigan)
Pretty strong language against their colleagues. Simply put, Proposition 8 is a redress against judges who overstepped their bounds.
Additionally, many churches and voters believe that this is a beginning of an attack on religious rights (the very FIRST right in the Bill of Rights — “marriage” is never listed). The American Bar Association has a movement to remove any person who discriminates based on sexual orientation, including being a member in any club or organization (read “church”) that does not allow homosexuality. Goodbye Catholic, Mormon, and Orthodox Jewish lawyers and judges. (It is thankfully still mired.) It’s just very risky listing homosexuals as a “protected” class.
Furthermore, I find this entire movement extremely hypocritical. This is not about “equal” marriage, because the definition would still exclude many types of relationships: polygamy, incest, etc. We’ll see when LGBT rights groups go protest on behave of the polygamous groups in Texas. Incidentally, the California Supreme Court would have been well advised to pick up Reynolds v. United States when hearing In Re Marriage. Again, a very hypocritical decision.
Back to my original comments that you did not address: 2) Last I heard, votes are cast in ballot boxes, not over TV and radio waves. 3) The “Mormon money” (and volunteer hours) predominantly came from in-state Mormons, California residents.
Additionally: Can you really judge The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints more harshly because its adherents followed the guidance of religious leaders more closely than members of other churches? Several pastors of other religions (Orthodox Jews, Catholics, Evangelicals) asked for donations, but their congregations did not heed the call as vigorously. The Mormon church was in fact more docile in its actual terminology. Mormons are on average more active in their church and more likely to follow council — does that make it a different situation?
And the Gray Davis comment was more of a post script
Hi again, Rick. Your comments illuminate why this issue carries with it a burden of Constitutional complexity that necessitates resolution beyond the bounds of a simple majority vote — or a discussion thread.
But in reference to the central point of the initiative process. . . Prop 8 (among others) calls into question the mechanism through which a fundamental change to the Constitution can be implemented. Absent in such a process are the checks and balances which protect minority interests . . . and which are a significant component in this particular debate. When that process is complicated by special interest involvement and politically motivated financing, I would say that Hiram Johnson’s reforms have, in fact, been skewed from their original intent.
With respect to the dissenting opinion in the California Supreme Court marriage cases, one could as easily argue for the viability of courts overturning a statute, evoking the relevant precedents of Perez v. Leopold (CA) or Loving v. Virginia (VA) — cases which overturned anti-miscegenation laws in California and Virginia. Did judges overstep their bounds in these cases?
In Perez v. Leopold, dissenting opinion cited an Oklahoma decision supporting the prohibition of interracial marriage: “Statutes forbidding intermarriage by the white and black races were without doubt dictated by wise statesmanship, and have a broad and solid foundation in enlightened policy, sustained by sound reason and common sense. The amalgamation of the races is not only unnatural, but is always productive of deplorable results. The purity of the public morals, the moral and physical development of both races, and the highest advancement of civilization, under which the two races must work out and accomplish their destiny, all require that they should be kept distinctly separate, and that connections and alliances so unnatural should be prohibited by positive law and subject to no evasion.”
In the recent California same-sex marriage decision, one basis for the majority opinion was:
“We conclude that, under this state’s Constitution, the constitutionally based right to
marry properly must be understood to encompass the core set of basic substantive
legal rights and attributes traditionally associated with marriage that are so integral
to an individual’s liberty and personal autonomy that they may not be eliminated
or abrogated by the Legislature or by the electorate through the statutory initiative
process.”
So, what constitutes one’s fundamental rights or a revocation thereof? Section 7 of the California State Constitution reads in part:
– A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws …
– A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens.
With respect to religion and the First Amendment, the amendment also says that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” We all know the First Amendment has historically been contentious in determining the limits and expanse of liberty.
And although votes may be cast in ballot boxes (or optical scanners), there are ethical considerations when the advertisements leading to some of those ballot decisions misrepresent the issue. That, sadly, is the reality of a process wherein voters don’t always actively seek out the truth behind the ad.
With respect to same-sex marriage and polygamy you’re making an equivalency argument between a situation that ostensibly involves no choice versus one where choice is involved. I do not believe homosexuality is a choice. In terms of judging the Mormon church more harshly, my comment was that there has been public backlash because of the church’s involvement.
only 200,000 MORMONS voted YES on 8. so why are they being ridiculed?