Opinion: The first vote on Proposition 8 ...

This article was originally on a blog post platform and may be missing photos, graphics or links. See About archive blog posts.

... comes tomorrow, when the state Supreme Court decides at its Wednesday conference whether to accept or reject a petition to throw Proposition 8 -- the initiative to ban same-sex marriage -- off the Nov. 4 ballot. Additional possibilities include calling for more briefing or even setting a date for oral argument. But time is of the essence, because ballot materials go to the printer next month.

To recap: On May 15, the Cal Supremes invalidated the state’s prohibition on same-sex marriage, adopted by voters in 2000 in the form of Proposition 22. Soon thereafter, an initiative petition to go the other way, enhancing the ban by making it a constitutional amendment, qualified for the ballot and was designated Proposition 8. On June 20, victorious parties in the court’s May same-sex marriage decision and other opponents of Proposition 8 asked the justices to strike the measure from the ballot.

There are two main arguments. The first is that in the wake of the court’s May decision, Prop 8 would so completely change the meaning of equal protection in the state Constitution that changing it wouldn’t just be an amendment, but something far more sweeping -- a revision. Revisions can’t go to the voters unless they were put on the ballot by a two-thirds vote of the Legislature or by a constitutional convention.

The simpler argument is that people who signed the petition were told that same-sex marriage in California already was barred. Of course, it was true at the time they signed, but it’s not now that the measure is about to go before voters.

Find information about the case before the court tomorrow here. It’s entitled Bennett v. Bowen. It is near the top of the list of cases to be considered tomorrow morning in San Francisco. You’ll find results posted tomorrow afternoon at he court’s site here. For background on the case and links to more detailed analyses of the legal arguments, see last week’s Perpetual Election update here.