Politics & Government

Has San Clemente's Stance on Same Sex Marriage Changed?

The U.S. Supreme Court is poised to hear arguments on Proposition 8, the ban on same-sex marriage that San Clemente voters helped pass.

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments Tuesday on Proposition 8, California's voter-approved measure restricting marriages to unions between a man and a woman.

Enacted by voters in 2008 and strongly supported in San Clemente, Proposition 8 was deemed unconstitutional last year by a federal appeals court panel, which found the initiative was at odds with U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment guaranteeing equal protection under the law.

A Supreme Court decision is likely by June.

Find out what's happening in San Clementewith free, real-time updates from Patch.

Voters in Orange County and San Clemente came out in favor of the proposition at a higher rate than the state average.

Nearly 58 percent of Orange County voters supported the measure compared to about 53 percent statewide. In San Clemente, about 56 percent of the voters said they didn’t want to allow same-sex marriages in California.

Find out what's happening in San Clementewith free, real-time updates from Patch.

More than four years later, the issue remains a highly divisive one locally. Supporters of same-sex marriages plan to hold a candlelight vigil in front of the federal courthouse in Santa Ana Tuesday.

Opponents of same-sex marriage will also be watching the proceedings closely.

Randy Thomasson, president of SaveCalifornia.com and an opponent of same- sex marriage, said the U.S. Supreme Court's review of Prop 8 goes beyond the issue of marriage.

"This case is as much about the survival of our Republic as it is about natural marriage between a man and a woman," Thomasson said. "We are a constitutional government that abides by written laws and their original meanings. A republic under the thumb of judges who act like kings has ceased to be a republic.

"The unchanging laws of nature require two distinct sexes for humans -- male and female," he said. "... In contrast, homosexual behavior is neither natural nor healthy, and doesn't qualify for marriage, which requires one man and one woman, no more, no less."

In March 2000, California voters approved Prop. 22, which specified in state law that only marriages between a man and a woman are valid in California. But in May of 2008, the state Supreme Court ruled the law was unconstitutional because it discriminated against gays, and an estimated 18,000 same-sex couples got married in the ensuing months.

Opponents of same-sex marriage quickly got Prop. 8 on the November 2008 ballot to amend the state constitution, and it was approved by a margin of 52.5 percent to 47.5 percent. The approval was followed by statewide protests and lawsuits challenging Prop. 8's legality.

In May 2009, the California Supreme Court upheld Prop. 8, but also ruled that the unions of roughly 18,000 same-sex couples who were wed in 2008 prior to its passage would remain valid.

Same-sex marriage supporters took their case to federal court, and U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker ruled in August 2010 that Proposition 8 "both unconstitutionally burdens the exercise of the fundamental right to marry and creates an irrational classification on the basis of sexual orientation."

Backers of Proposition 8 -- ProtectMarriage.com -- appealed to the 9th Circuit, because then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and then-Attorney General Jerry Brown declined to do so. The appellate court heard arguments in 2011, but put a decision on hold while it awaited the state Supreme Court's ruling on the ability of Prop. 8 backers to press the case forward.

Once the state Supreme Court decided that Prop. 8 supporters had legal standing, the 9th Circuit moved ahead with its consideration of the case, hearing more arguments last December on a motion by Prop. 8 backers asking that Vaughn's ruling be thrown out because the judge was in a long-term same-sex relationship that he had not disclosed.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last year that the proposition's primary impact was to "lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California."

"It stripped same-sex couples of the ability they previously possessed to obtain and use the designation of 'marriage' to describe their relationships," according to the court's decision. "Nothing more, nothing less. Proposition 8 therefore could not have been enacted to advance California's interests in child-rearing or responsible procreation, for it had no effect on the rights of same-sex couples to raise children or on the procreative practices of other couples.

"Nor did Proposition 8 have any effect on religious freedom or on parents' rights to control their children's education; it could not have been enacted to safeguard those liberties."

In addition to Proposition 8, the U.S. Supreme Court this week will also hear arguments over the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which was enacted in 1996 and defined marriage solely as a union between opposite-sex couples.

TELL US WHAT YOU THINK IN THE COMMENTS

Has your stance changed since 2008? How do you think the court should rule on Proposition 8?

- City News Service contributed to this story.


Get more local news delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for free Patch newsletters and alerts.

We’ve removed the ability to reply as we work to make improvements. Learn more here