2008 California Proposition 8 and Black Jungle, Northern Territory: Difference between pages

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Difference between pages)
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Undid revision 244003404 by Mike Doughney (talk) This material is not "uncited".
 
The Anomebot2 (talk | contribs)
Bots
1,036,909 edits
Adding geodata: {{coord missing|Australia}}
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Infobox Australian Place | type = suburb
'''Proposition 8''' is titled '''Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry'''.<ref>{{cite web
| name = Black Jungle
| title = Propositions that are on the November 4, 2008, General Election Ballot
| city = [[Darwin, Northern Territory|Darwin]]
| publisher = California Secretary of State
| state = nt
| url = http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/elections_j.htm
| image =
| accessdate = 2008-09-25}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://washblade.com/2008/8-15/news/national/13101.cfm|publisher=Washington Blade|title=Anti-gay activists abandon effort to rewrite California amendment.}}</ref> Technically, the phrase "Eliminates Right of Same–Sex Couples to Marry" is the "Official Title" only in the sense that it is the title prepared by the Attorney General for use in the Official Voter Information Guide; it is not the title of Proposition 8 itself. Section 1 of Proposition 8 itself provides the official title of the proposed constitutional amendment. That section, entitled "Title," reads as follows: "This measure shall be known and may be cited as the 'California Marriage Protection Act.'"<ref>http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/text-proposed-laws/text-of-proposed-laws.pdf#prop8</ref>. It is an [[ballot initiative|initiative]] [[ballot measure|measure]] on the 2008 [[California]] [[California state elections, November 2008|General Election ballot]]. If passed, the proposition would change the [[California Constitution]] to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in California<ref>{{cite web|title=Proposition 8 - Title and Summary - Voter Information Guide 2008|publisher=California Secretary of State|url=http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/title-sum/prop8-title-sum.htm|accessdate=2008-09-30}}</ref>. A [[California_Proposition_8_(2008)#Proposed_amendment|new]] section would be added stating "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." <p>The measure was submitted for the ballot by petitioners with the title "California Marriage Protection Act."<ref name="DB08:068">{{cite web|url=http://www.sos.ca.gov/admin/press-releases/2008/DB08-068.pdf|title=Secretary of State Debra Bowen Certifies Eighth Measure for November 4, 2008, General Election|last=Folmar|first=Kate|date=2008-06-02|work=California Secretary of State|accessdate=2008-08-07}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.protectmarriage.com/read.php|publisher=protectmarriage.com|title=Limit on marriage. Constitutional amendment}}</ref> The title and summary were revised by [[California Attorney General|Attorney General]] [[Jerry Brown]] to more "accurately reflect the measure."<ref>{{cite news|title=Opponents of gay marriage say they'll sue over changed wording in Proposition 8|publisher=LA Times|date=[[July 29]], [[2008]]|url= http://www.latimes.com/news/local/politics/cal/la-me-gaymarriage29-2008jul29,0,7313757.story}}</ref> The Superior Court of California ruled in favor of these revisions, stating, "The title and summary is not false or misleading because it states that Proposition 8 would 'eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry' in California. The California Supreme Court unequivocally held that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry under the California Constitution." <ref name="superiorcourt">{{cite court
| caption =
|litigants = Jansson v. Bowen, et.al.
|vol =
| lga =
|reporter =
| postcode =
| est =
|opinion = Petition for Writ of Mandate, Order After Hearing
|pinpoint =
| pop =
| area =
|court = Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento
| propval =
|date = 2008-08-07
| stategov =
|url= http://ag.ca.gov/cms_attachments/press/pdfs/n1597_ruling_on_proposition_8.pdf }}</ref>
| fedgov =
| near-nw =
| near-n =
| near-ne =
| near-w =
| near-e =
| near-sw =
| near-s =
| near-se =
| dist1 =
| location1= [[Darwin, Northern Territory|Darwin]]
| dist2 =
| location2=
}}


'''Black Jungle''' is an outer suburban area in [[Darwin, Northern Territory|Darwin]]. The name of the locality derived from "Black Jungle" which first appeared on a plan of the "Umpity Doo Homestead" block, Agricultural Lease No 28 in 1910.<ref>[http://www.nt.gov.au/lands/lis/placenames/origins/greaterdarwin.shtml#b Black Jungle (Locality)]</ref>
==History==
===Background===

Until 1977, California did not explicitly define marriage as being between a man and a woman, but court decisions, and some statutes, dating from both statehood and the 1872 codification of the civil law, assumed as much.<ref>{{cite web|title=Same-Sex Marriage in California - Overview and Issues|publisher=UC Berkeley, Institute of Governmental Studies|url=http://igs.berkeley.edu/library/htGayMarriage.html|author=IGS Library staff|accessdate=2008-10-18}}</ref><ref name=overview>{{cite web|title=In re Marriage Cases|url=http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S147999.PDF|accessdate=2008-06-04}}</ref> In 1977, the legislature amended Civil Code section 4100 (predecessor to what is now codified at Family Code section 300) to read that marriage is "a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between a man and a woman".<ref name=overview/> In 2000, voters passed with 61% of the vote, ballot initiative [[California Proposition 22 (2000)|Proposition 22]], which changed the [[California Family Code]] to formally define marriage in California between a man and a woman. However, other laws have been passed by the legislature (since 1999) which recognize [[domestic partnership]]s and afford them some of the rights of marriage.<ref name=overview/>

A number of developments arose in the wake of Mayor [[Gavin Newsom]]'s 2004 decision to [[San Francisco 2004 same-sex weddings|perform same sex marriages]] in San Francisco. The 3,995 marriages were [[annulment|annulled]] by the California Supreme Court, but San Francisco began a legal challenge that was consolidated with other cases as ''[[In re Marriage Cases]]''. On [[May 15]], [[2008]] the [[California Supreme Court]], by a vote of 4–3, ruled that the statute enacted by [[California Proposition 22 (2000)|Proposition 22]] and other statutes that limit marriage to a relationship between a man and a woman violated the equal protection clause of the California Constitution. It also held that individuals of the same sex have the right to marry under the California Constitution.<ref>{{cite web|title=Proposition 8 Analysis - Voter Information Guide 2008|publisher=California Secretary of State|url=http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/analysis/prop8-analysis.htm|accessdate=2008-09-30}}</ref> The court subsequently refused to issue a stay of its order.<ref>{{cite press release | title = Order re: Denial of Rehearing and Stay | publisher = Supreme Court of California | date = [[2008-06-04]] | url = http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/presscenter/newsreleases/NR31-08.PDF }}</ref> As of June 17, 2008, marriage between individuals of the same sex is currently valid or recognized in the state.

While the case was under way, Governor [[Arnold Schwarzenegger]] vetoed two legislative bills approving same-sex marriage. Anticipating that either the courts or the legislature might overturn Proposition 22, opponents of same-sex marriages introduced several attempts to place a constitutional amendment before voters that would prohibit same-sex marriages—and in some cases, domestic partnerships as well.<ref>{{cite news|title=MARRIAGE DIGEST: Signature drive for Calif. marriage amend. fails; Cherokee lesbian couple wins court case |author=Michael Foust |publisher=[[Baptist Press]]|date=2006-01-06|url= http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/bpnews.asp?ID=22405}}</ref> Prior to 2008, none had made it to the ballot.

===Initiatives===

In late 2007 and 2008, at least four different groups sponsored new ballot initiatives for a constitutional amendment prohibiting same-sex marriages. The one that did obtain enough signatures,<ref>Apparently, as of May, 2008</ref> is the "California Marriage Protection Act"<ref name="text">[http://www.ag.ca.gov/cms_pdfs/initiatives/i737_07-0068_Initiative.pdf Scan of Initiative] from [[California Attorney General]]'s web site</ref> (officially titled the "Limit on Marriage" Constitutional Amendment by the [[California Attorney General]]), sponsored by ProtectMarriage.com<ref name="ProtectMarriage.com">{{cite web|accessdate=2008-07-07 |url=http://www.protectmarriage.com/ |title=ProtectMarriage.com}}</ref>.
During the initiative process, what is now Proposition 8 had been assigned the number 07-0068.<ref name=bar>{{cite news|url= http://www.ebar.com/news/article.php?sec=news&article=2655 |publisher=Bay Area Reporter |date=[[January 31]], [[2008]] |title=Anti-gay initiative drive back on |author=Seth Hemmelgarn}}</ref> Among the individual sponsors is Gail Knight, the widow of [[William J. Knight|Pete Knight]], who sponsored [[California Proposition 22 (2000)|Proposition 22]].<ref name=bar/> A rival proposal, the "Right to Protect Marriage Initiative", sponsored by the organization voteyesmarriage.com, was unable to obtain enough signatures, which the organization claimed was due to inability to raise funds.<ref>{{cite web|accessdate=2008-05-18 |url=http://www.voteyesmarriage.com/ |title=An Important Update from VoteYesMarriage.com}}</ref>

==Proposed amendment==
If passed, the amendment would override the ruling in ''[[In re Marriage Cases]]'' that struck down both the 1977 law and Proposition 22.<ref>{{cite news|title=Opponents of same-sex marriage plot their campaign strategy|author=Demian Bulwa|publisher=San Francisco Chronicle|date=[[May 15]], [[2008]]|url= http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/05/15/BA3G10N42P.DTL&tsp=1}}</ref> The Constitution, as amended, would add a new section (Section 7.5) to Article I, placing it between the state Equal Protection clause and [[nondiscrimination]] in business and the professions. This new section would read:
<blockquote>Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.<ref name="text" /><ref>"[http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/elections_j.htm#2008General Propositions that are on the November 4, 2008 General Election Ballot]", California Secretary of State</ref><ref>[http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/bp_11042008_pres_general/prop_8_text_law.pdf Text of Proposition 8], Official Voter Information Guide (draft copy), retrieved July 28, 2008</ref></blockquote>

According to Joan Hollinger, a professor at the [[University of California, Berkeley]], [[Berkeley Law|Boalt Hall School of Law]], "Constitutional scholars agree that the amendment cannot be effective retroactively."<ref>[[The Advocate]], July 1, 2008 issue, article "''Summer of Love, Winter of Struggle''" by Sue Rochman.</ref>

Although concise, the proposed amendment has a grammatical flaw. The word "only" appears to [[Grammatical modifier|modify]] "marriage", rather than a particular type of marriage (as in "only heterosexual marriage..."). As worded, the amendment would technically invalidate divorce, or any other relationship between a man and a woman that is not marriage. Lawyers insist that in a court of law it is unlikely the wording would be interpreted in this literal a fashion. <ref>[http://se.uwaterloo.ca/~dberry/handbook/ambiguityHandbook.pdf] "Linguistic Sources of Ambiguity" Daniel M. Berry, Erik Kamsties</ref>

==Ballot summary language==

In November 2007, [[California Attorney General]] [[Jerry Brown]] prepared a title and summary for the signature-gathering petition that reads:
<blockquote>'''LIMIT ON MARRIAGE. CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.''' Amends the California Constitution to provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: The measure would have no fiscal effect on state or local governments. This is because there would be no change to the manner in which marriages are currently recognized by the state.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://ag.ca.gov/cms_attachments/initiatives/pdfs/i737_07-0068_title_and_summary.pdf |title=Initiative Measure Title and Summary (07-0068) |publisher=California Attorney General |date=2007-11-29}}</ref> </blockquote>

After the measure qualified for the general election the Attorney General revised the descriptions of Prop. 8 for the upcoming Voter Information Guide. On July 22, the [[California Secretary of State]] made the proposed ballot information available for public review. The new ballot label (condensed version of the title and summary) reads:
<blockquote>'''ELIMINATES RIGHT OF SAME-SEX COUPLES TO MARRY. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.''' Changes the California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in California. Provides that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. Fiscal Impact: Over next few years, potential revenue loss, mainly sales taxes, totaling in the several tens of millions of dollars, to state and local governments. In the long run, likely little fiscal impact on state and local governments. <ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/bp_11042008_pres_general/prop_8_titlesummary.pdf |title=Ballot Label (Proposition 8) |publisher=California Secretary of State |date=2008-07-03}}</ref></blockquote>

Through a spokesperson, the Attorney General explained that "the change was necessary because of the dramatic turn of events that have taken place since the petitions were circulated: namely that the California Supreme Court [[In re Marriage Cases|legalized same-sex marriage]] and thousands of gay couples have since wed."<ref>{{cite news|title=Opponents of gay marriage say they'll sue over changed wording in Proposition 8|publisher=LA Times|date=[[July 29]], [[2008]]|url= http://www.latimes.com/news/local/politics/cal/la-me-gaymarriage29-2008jul29,0,7313757.story}}</ref> The text of the actual proposed amendment has not changed.

Proposition 8 supporters immediately mounted a legal challenge to the changes, contending that Attorney General Brown had inserted "inflammatory" language that would "unduly prejudice voters against" Proposition 8.<ref name="mercnewssummary">{{cite news|url=http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_10034736?nclick_check=1|title=Prop. 8 supporters sue over gay marriage ballot language|last=Swift|first=Mike|date=2008-07-29|work=Mercury News|publisher=MediaNews Group|accessdate=2008-08-07}}</ref> Opponents to the measure declared their support for the language, while representatives of the Attorney General vouched for the neutrality and accuracy of the language.<ref name="azcentralsummary">{{cite news|url=http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2008/07/28/20080728gaymarriagecalif0728-ON.html|title=Gay marriage foes challenge ballot wording|last=Garrison|first=Jessica|date=2008-07-28|work=AZ Central.com|accessdate=2008-08-07}}</ref> On August 8, 2008, a judge turned down this legal challenge, affirming the new title and summary.<ref name='sfgatetitleupheld'> {{cite news|url=http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/08/08/BAE5127O2F.DTL&type=politics|title=GJudge refuses to order change in Prop. 8 title|last=Egelko|first=Bob|date=2008-08-08|work=Sfgate.com|accessdate=2008-08-08}}</ref> Proponents of Prop. 8 immediately appealed to the decision.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/news/story.aspx?cid=4638|title=Prop. 8 proponents will appeal decision upholding flawed ballot title|date=2008-08-08|work=ADF Media Relations (press release|accessdate=2008-08-08}}</ref> The Court of Appeal denied their petition the same day, and they did not seek review by the [[Supreme Court of California]].<ref name="sfgate_appealdrop">{{cite news | first=Bob | last=Egelko | url=http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/08/12/BADU128V6V.DTL&type=politics | title=Prop. 8 backers drop challenge on wording | work= San Francisco Chronicle | date=2008-08-12}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=3&doc_id=1374371&doc_no=C059606 |title=Order Denying Petition (Case No. C059606)|publisher=California Court of Appeal, 3rd District |date=2008-08-08}}</ref>

==Legal challenges==
*On June 4, 2008, the [[California Supreme Court]] denied a petition to stay its order on Proposition 22.<ref>{{cite news|title=Calif. Gay Marriage Ruling Goes Forward|publisher=CBS News|date=[[June 4]], [[2008]]|url= http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/06/04/national/main4152612.shtml}}</ref>

*On July 16, 2008, the [[California Supreme Court]] dismissed a motion for pre-election review of Proposition 8 which would determine whether it was a constitutional amendment or constitutional revision. Were the court to have found Proposition 8 to be a constitutional revision, it would have been removed from the ballot.<ref name="latimes">{{cite news|url=http://www.latimes.com/news/local/politics/cal/la-me-gaymarriage17-2008jul17,0,4823383.story|title=Bid to ban gay marriage will stay on ballot, California Supreme Court rules|last=Dolan|first=Maura|date=2008-07-17|work=[[Los Angeles Times]]|publisher=[[David Hiller]]|accessdate=2008-08-07}}</ref><ref>[http://ag.ca.gov/cms_attachments/initiatives/pdfs/i737_07-0068_title_and_summary.pdf Attorney General of California - Initiatives]</ref> The question of whether Proposition 8 is a constitutional amendment or constitutional revision remains unresolved.

*On August 8, 2008, the Superior Court turned down a legal challenge aimed at reversing the renaming and rephrasing of the official Proposition 8 language.<ref name='sfgatetitleupheld' />

==Proponents and opponents==

By Election Day, the measure's opponents and supporters expect to spend about $40 million. Volunteers on both sides will have spent thousands of hours getting their messages across to the state's 16.2 million registered voters. More than 9,500 people from all 50 states and the District of Columbia have contributed nearly $22 million to support or oppose the measure, while institutions have kicked in another $7.8 million.<ref>{{cite news | url=http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/09/27/politics/p173851D01.DTL&type=politics|title=Calif. gay marriage ban sparks 'War of the Rings'|publisher=San Francisco Chronicle|accessdate=2008-09-30|author=Lisa Leff}}</ref>

===Proponents===
The ProtectMarriage.com<ref name="ProtectMarriage.com"/> organization sponsored the initiative that placed Proposition 8 on the ballot and continues to support the referendum. Other significant supporters include [[Republican Party (United States)|Republican]] [[California State Senate|State Senator]] [[Tom McClintock]] and 20 other Republican State Senators and Assemblymembers.<ref name="protectmarriageendorsements">{{cite web|url=http://www.protectmarriage.com/endorsements|title=Protect Marriage » Endorsements|accessdate=2008-07-31}}</ref>

Republican presidential nominee and [[United States Senate|U.S. Senator]] [[John McCain]] released the following statement of support for the proposed constitutional amendment:

{{quote|I support the efforts of the people of California to recognize marriage as a unique institution between a man and a woman [...]. I do not believe judges should be making these decisions."<ref name="foxbusinessmccain">{{cite news|url=http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/campaign-2008/2008/06/27/mccain-supports-efforts-to-ban-gay-marriage.html|title=McCain Supports Efforts to Ban Gay Marriage|date=2008-06-27|work=U.S. News & World Report|accessdate=2008-09-01}}</ref>}}

Former Speaker of the House [[Newt Gingrich]] has released a video in which he emphasizes his support to "defend and protect marriage" and to "overrule the judges" by "vot[ing] yes on Proposition 8."<ref>{{cite news | first=Newt | last=Gingrich | coauthors= | title=Stop Imperial Judges...Support Proposition 8 | date= | publisher=Newt Gingrich | url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73Q4V8WNF6k | work = | pages = | accessdate = 2008-10-01 | language = }}</ref>

Religious organizations which support Proposition 8 include the [[Roman Catholic Church]] <ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid59060.asp|title=Catholic Bishops Endorse Prop. 8|accessdate=2008-09-19}}</ref>, [[Knights of Columbus]] <ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/863947548.html||title=Proposition 8 to Protect Marriage Receives $1 Million Donation from the Knights of Columbus Catholic Organization|accessdate=2008-09-19}}</ref>, [[Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America]]<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.forward.com/articles/14106/|title= Orthodox Join Fight Against Gay Nuptials||accessdate=2008-09-19}}</ref>, [[The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints]] <ref>{{cite web|url=http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/california-and-same-sex-marriage|title=California and Same-Sex Marriage|accessdate=2008-09-05}}</ref> <ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.heraldextra.com/content/view/280669/3/|title=LDS Donate Millions to Fight Gay Marriage|accessdate=2008-09-17}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.washblade.com/2008/9-19/news/national/13307.cfm|title=Prop 8 supporters see surge in donations |accessdate=2008-09-19}}</ref>, a group of Evangelical Christians led by Pastor Jim Garlow (head of Skyline Church in San Diego) and Pastor Miles McPherson (former San Diego Charger and head of the Rock Church in San Diego<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/426077.aspx|title=Christian Marriage Movement's Ground Zero|accessdate=2008-09-19}}</ref>), [[American Family Association]], [[Focus on the Family]] <ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.washingtonblade.com/2008/9-19/news/national/13307.cfm?page=2|title=Prop 8 supporters see surge in donations|accessdate=2008-09-19}}</ref> and the National Organization for Marriage <ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/sep/16/usa.gayrights|title=California's ballot battle over gay marriage shows US cultural divide|accessdate=2008-09-17}}</ref>.

The California Catholic Conference has released a statement in support of the proposition. The Catholic Bishops of California have stated that "by drawing on the revelation of Scripture, the wisdom of Tradition, the experience and insights of holy men and women as well as on what can be known by reason alone," they have decided "that marriage is the ideal relationship between a man and a woman for the purpose of procreation and the continuation of the human race."<ref>{{cite news | first= | last= | coauthors= | title=Catholic Bishops Support Proposition 8 | date= | publisher=California Catholic Conference | url=http://www.cacatholic.org/news/catholic-bishops-support-proposition-8.html | work = | pages = | accessdate = 2008-09-27 | language = }}</ref>

[[The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints]], or [[Mormon Church]], has publicly supported the Proposition and encouraged their membership to support it, by asking for money donations and volunteer time<ref>{{cite news | first= | last= | coauthors= | title=California and Same Sex Marriage | date=2008-06-30 | publisher=The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints | url =http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/california-and-same-sex-marriage | work = | pages = | accessdate = 2008-09-27 | language = }}</ref>. The Church's political stance includes "The Church does not: Endorse, promote or oppose political parties, candidates or platforms", but reserves "the right as an institution to address, in a nonpartisan way, issues that it believes have significant community or moral consequences or that directly affect the interests of the Church."<ref>{{cite news | first= | last= | coauthors= | title=Political Neutrality | date= | publisher=The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints | url=http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/public-issues/political-neutrality | work = | pages = | accessdate = 2008-09-27 | language = }}</ref>

===Opponents===
Equality for All is the lead organization opposed to Proposition 8.<ref name="equalityforall">{{cite web|url=http://www.equalityforall.com/home|title=Join No On Prop 8, Equality For All|work=Equality for All|accessdate=2008-07-31}}</ref> They also run the NoOnProp8.com campaign.<ref name="noonprop8">{{cite web|url=http://www.noonprop8.com/home|title=Vote No On Prop 8|work= Vote No On Prop 8|accessdate=2008-09-21}}</ref> [[Republican Party (United States)|Republican]] [[Governor of California|California Governor]] [[Arnold Schwarzenegger]] stated that although he has opposed and has [[veto]]ed legislative bills that would legalize same sex marriage in California, he is opposed to the initiative and other attempts to amend the state's constitution.<ref>{{cite news|title=Schwarzenegger: No to Marriage Amendment|author=Allison Hoffman|publisher=Associated Press |date=2008-04-12|url= http://www.christianpost.com/article/20080412/31920_Schwarzenegger:_No_to_Marriage_Amendment_.htm}}</ref> Schwarzenegger released the following statement on [[May 15]], [[2008]] regarding the ruling:

{{quote|I respect the Court's decision and as Governor, I will uphold its ruling. Also, as I have said in the past, I will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling.<ref>{{cite press release|url= http://www.gov.ca.gov/press-release/9610/ |title=Gov. Schwarzenegger Issues Statement on Today's State Supreme Court Ruling |date=2008-05-15 |publisher=Office of the Governor of California}}</ref>}}

[[Democratic Party (United States)|Democratic]] presidential nominee and U.S. Senator [[Barack Obama]] said he supports extending "fully equal rights and benefits to same-sex couples under both state and federal law....And that is why I oppose the divisive and discriminatory efforts to amend the California Constitution, and similar efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution or those of other states,",<ref>{{cite news | last=Rojas |first=Aurelio |title=Obama rejects proposed California gay marriage ban |url=http://www.sacbee.com/111/story/1051404.html |work=Sacramento Bee | date=2008-07-01| retrieved=2008/08/13}}</ref><ref>{{cite news | last=Kapfer |first=William |title=Obama pledges equality for all |url=http://www.washblade.com/2008/9-12/election08/topstory/13273.cfm |work=Washington Blade | date=2008-08-12 |retrieved=2008/09/19}}</ref> as has the [[United States Speaker of the House|U.S. House Speaker]] and California Representative ([[California's 8th congressional district|8th District]]) [[Nancy Pelosi]].<ref>{{cite press release | title=Pelosi Statement on California State Supreme Court Ruling on Gay Marriage | publisher=House Speaker Nancy Pelosi |date=2008-05-15 |url=http://www.house.gov/pelosi/press/releases/May08/marriage.html}}</ref>. Both Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, the two senators representing California, have voiced their opposition to Proposition 8,<ref>{{cite news|url=http://ebar.com/news/article.php?sec=news&article=3320|title=Feinstein opposes Prop 8|publisher=Bay Area Reporter|date=2008-09-11}}</ref> as have the mayors of [[San Francisco]], [[Los Angeles]], and [[San Diego]]: [[Gavin Newsom]], [[Antonio Villaraigosa]], and [[Jerry Sanders]] respectively.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://ebar.com/news/article.php?sec=news&article=3312|title=Feinstein silent on Prop 8|last=Hemmelgarn|first=Seth|date=2008-09-11|work=Bay Area Reporter|accessdate=2008-09-17}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPh0PQ89n6Y|title=Gavin Newsom Speaks on Prop 8|work=YouTube|accessdate=2008-09-17}}</ref> <ref>
{{cite web|url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rfea8iEGNw|title=San Diego Mayor Stands Up For Marriage Equality|work=YouTube|accessdate=2008-10-02}}</ref>

The state's four largest newspapers have editorialized against Proposition 8: the ''[[Los Angeles Times]]'',<ref>{{cite web|title=Reneging on a right|url=http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-marriage8-2008aug08%2C0%2C1229155.story|date=2008-08-08|accessdate=2008-09-29}}</ref> the ''[[San Francisco Chronicle]]'',<ref>{{cite web|title=Californians should reject Propostion 8|date=2008-10-01|accessdate=2008-10-02}}</ref> the ''[[San Diego Union-Tribune]]'',<ref>{{cite web|title=Gay marriage right should not be repealed|url=http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20080918/news_lz1ed18top.html|date=2008-09-18|accessdate=2008-09-29}}</ref> and ''[[The Orange County Register]]''.<ref>{{cite web|title=California Prop. 8 Editorial: Intrusion into marriage should be even-handed|url=http://www.ocregister.com/articles/marriage-sex-protection-2174926-california-state|date=2008-10-01|accessdate=2008-10-02}}</ref> <!-- Circulation figures are from [[List of newspapers in the United States by circulation]]. The state's 5th largest paper is the Sacramento Bee, which has yet to issue an endorsement. If it comes out against, this statement can be changed to "All six of the state's..." since the SJ Mercury News (below) is California's 6th largest-->Other papers to have [[editorial]]ized in opposition include
the ''[[San Jose Mercury News]]'',<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_10229683|title=Editorial: Initiative against gay marriage must be defeated|date=2008-08-17|accessdate=2008-09-29}}</ref> and ''[[The New York Times]]''.<ref>{{cite web|title=Preserving California’s Constitution|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/29/opinion/29mon3.html|date=2008-09-28|accessdate=2008-09-29}}</ref>

[[Google]] has announced their official corporate opposition to Proposition 8, viewing the question "fundamentally as an issue of equality."<ref>{{cite web|title=Our position on California's No on 8 campaign|url=http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2008/09/our-position-on-californias-no-on-8.html|date=2008-09-26|accessdate=2008-09-29}}</ref>

All six [[Episcopal Church in the United States of America|Episcopal]] diocesan bishops in California jointly issued a statement opposing Proposition 8 on September 10, 2008.<ref>{{cite news|title=California's top Episcopal bishops oppose gay marriage ban|url=http://www.latimes.com/news/local/politics/cal/la-me-gaymarriage11-2008sep11,0,7646017.story|publisher=Los Angeles Times|date=2008-09-11}}</ref>.

Southern California's largest collection of rabbis voted overwhelmingly to oppose Proposition 8. Leaders of the Board of Rabbis of Southern California -- with representatives from the Reconstructionist, Reform, Conservative and Orthodox movements -- said they wanted to protect the civil rights of gay and lesbian couples. The resolution did not address the sanctity of gay marriage. Instead, it urged a no vote on Proposition 8 so that same-sex couples can continue to marry under civil law.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-briefs27-2008sep27,0,1387683.story|title=Southern California rabbi board opposes gay marriage ban|publisher=Los Angeles Times|date=2008-09-27}}</ref>

Jewish groups in the [[San Francisco Bay Area]] came together to present an event against Proposition 8. The September 17, 2008 event was presented by the Jewish Community Relations Council and the LGBT Alliance of the Jewish Community Federations of San Francisco, the Peninsula, Marin, and Sonoma Counties; the Jewish Community Federation of the Greater East Bay; and the Progressive Jewish Alliance<ref>http://www.pjalliance.org/article.aspx?CID=5&ID=465</ref>.
Other Jewish groups who sponsored the event and who oppose Proposition 8 include Kol Tzedek<ref>http://www.jewishmosaic.org/page/news</ref>, Congregation Beth Am<ref>http://www.nclrights.org/site/PageServer?pagename=nclr_getinvolved_Noon8_events</ref>, Congregation Emanu-El<ref>http://www.jewishsf.com/content/2-0-/module/displaystory/story_id/35995/edition_id/673/format/html/displaystory.html</ref>, Keshet, Congregation Sha'ar Zahav, Kulanu, Nehirim, Congregation Shomrei Torah, Congregation Sherith Israel, [[Jewish Mosaic]], [[National Council of Jewish Women]]<ref>http://www.forward.com/articles/14106/</ref>, Jews for Marriage Equality<ref>http://www.jewsformarriageequality.org/html/news.html</ref>, No on Prop 8 - Equality for All campaign<ref>http://www.noonprop8.com/about?id=0010</ref>, and the [[ACLU]] of Northern California.<ref>http://www.aclunc.org/issues/lgbt/vote_no_on_proposition_8_protect_marriage_equality_for_all.shtml</ref>

Both [[Steven Spielberg]] and [[Brad Pitt]] have donated $100,000 to campaigns opposing Proposition 8.<ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/celebritynews/3071332/Steven-Spielberg-joins-campaign-to-prevent-gay-marriage-ban.html</ref>

==Opinion polls==
A simple majority of votes cast is required to enact a constitutional amendment.<ref>{{cite news | author = Amar, Vikram David | title = The People of California Have the Power to Undo It By a Ballot Initiative Amending the State Constitution, But How Far Should That Power Extend? | url = http://writ.news.findlaw.com/amar/20080522.html | work = FindLaw's Writ | date = 2008-05-22 }}</ref>

{| class="wikitable"
<!-- Opinion polls are listed in reverse chronological order - latest first -->
!Date of opinion poll
!Conducted by
![[Sample size]]
!In favor
!Against
!Undecided
|-
| bgcolor="#F0F0F0" | '''[[6 October]] [[2008]]'''<ref>
{{cite news
|url=http://cbs5.com/politics/proposition.8.poll.2.834082.html
|title=Young Voters Lead Prop 8 Support Shift
|work=[[CBS 5 local]]
|date=[[2008-10-06]]
|accessdate=2008-10-07
}}</ref><ref>
{{cite web
|url=http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=b46ce159-115e-4f44-8be2-ce9b8eca657e
|title=California Proposition 8 Too Close To Call
|publisher=SurveyUSA
|date=[[2008-10-06]]
|accessdate=2008-10-07
}}</ref>|| [[SurveyUSA]] || 670 || '''47%''' || 42% || 10%
|-
| bgcolor="#F0F0F0" | '''[[25 September]] [[2008]]'''<ref>
{{cite news
|url=http://abclocal.go.com/kfsn/story?section=news/politics&id=6413879
|title=Action News poll
|work=[[ABC 30 local]]
|date=[[2008-09-26]]
|accessdate=2008-09-26
}}</ref><ref>
{{cite web
|url=http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=5b550e83-b6dc-4554-a125-a795e5dd7a6c
|title=California Proposition 8 Could Go Either Way
|publisher=SurveyUSA
|date=[[2008-09-25]]
|accessdate=2008-09-26
}}</ref>|| [[SurveyUSA]] || 661 || 44% || '''49%''' || 8%
|-
| bgcolor="#F0F0F0" | '''[[24 September]] [[2008]]'''<ref name="sfgate_ppicsep">
{{cite news|author=Wildermuth, John|title=Poll: Same-sex marriage ban not wooing voters|work=San Francisco Chronicle|page=B2|date=25 Sep 2008|url=http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/09/25/BAMV134E8L.DTL}}
</ref>|| [[Public Policy Institute of California]] || 1,157 || 41% || '''55%''' || 4%
|-
| bgcolor="#F0F0F0" | '''[[16 September]] [[2008]]'''<ref name="sfgate_fieldsep">
{{cite news
|url=http://www.ppic.org/main/pressrelease.asp?i=880
|title=State Ban on Gay Marriage Trailing
|work=[[Public Policy Institute of California]]
|date=[[2008-09-16]]
|accessdate=2008-09-18
}}</ref>|| The Field Poll || 830 || 38% || '''55%''' || 7%
|-
| bgcolor="#F0F0F0" | '''[[27 August]] [[2008]]'''<ref name=ppic>
{{cite news
|url=http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-gaymarriage28-2008aug28,0,6444457.story
|title=Most oppose bid to ban gay marriage in California, poll finds
|work=[[Los Angeles Times]]
|date=[[2008-08-27]]
|accessdate=2008-08-30
}}</ref>|| Public Policy Institute of California || 1,047 || 40% || '''54%''' || 6%
|-
| bgcolor="#F0F0F0" | '''[[17 July]] [[2008]]'''<ref name=wsj>
{{cite news
|url=http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20080718-9999-1n18field.html
|title=Measure to prohibit gay unions is trailing
|work=[[The San Diego Union-Tribune]]
|date=[[2008-07-18]]
|accessdate=2008-08-01
}}</ref>|| The Field Poll || 672 || 42% || '''51%''' || 7%
|-
| bgcolor="#F0F0F0" | '''[[28 May]] [[2008]]'''<ref>
{{cite news
|url=http://www.sacbee.com/111/story/970055.html
|title=Field Poll: Majority of Californians now support gay marriage
|work=[[Sacramento Bee]]
|date=[[2008-05-28]]
|accessdate=2008-08-01
}}</ref>|| The Field Poll || 1,052 || 42% || '''51%''' || 7%
|-
| bgcolor="#F0F0F0" | '''[[23 May]] [[2008]]'''<ref>
{{cite news
|url=http://www.latimes.com/news/custom/timespoll/la-me-poll23-2008may23,0,5490260.story
|title=Times Poll: Californians narrowly reject gay marriage
|work=[[Los Angeles Times]]
|date=[[2008-05-23]]
|accessdate=2008-08-01
}}</ref>|| [[Los Angeles Times]]/[[KTLA]] || 834 || '''54%''' || 35% || 11%
|-
|}

=== Reliability of polling data ===
There is some debate about the extent to which opinion polls accurately reflect the electorate's views on same-sex marriage, due in part to [[social desirability bias]] (i.e. voters telling pollsters what they think the pollsters want to hear). The magnitude of such an effect is hotly contested.<ref name=egan>
{{cite news|url=http://www.advocate.com/exclusive_detail_ektid62114.asp |title=Can You Trust the Polling on Proposition 8? |work=[[The Advocate]] |date=[[2008-09-23]] |accessdate=2008-09-24}}</ref>

In the 2000 primary election, Proposition 22 passed with a margin eight points greater than predicted by one polling organization. The Field Poll immediately prior to the election showed 53% of likely voters in favor.<ref>http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_10497209</ref> Other polls conducted in the same month showed 57% of voters supported the measure.<ref>{{cite news |author=Warren, Jenifer|title=Gay couple speak out against measure|work=Los Angeles Times|page=A3|date=2 Mar 2000}}</ref><ref>{{Citation |first=Mark|last=Baldassare|date=February 2000|title=PPIC Statewide Survey: Californians and Their Government|publication-place=San Francisco|pages=vii,7}}</ref> The actual vote in favor was 61.4% of votes cast (of all ballots, 58.6% voted yes, 36.9% voted no, and 4.5% did not vote).<ref>{{cite website|title=Statement of Vote Cast on Ballot Measures|publisher=California Secretary of State|date=200-08-20|url=http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/sov/2000_primary/measures.pdf}}</ref>

An analysis by Patrick J. Egan of [[New York University]] suggests that such gaps have been falling steadily over recent years. Seven of the states that voted on marriage bans in 2006 have polling data available. In those, the average gap between polled support for the measure and the final outcome was under one percentage point.<ref name=egan/>
<!-- ==Results==
{{Prop 8 results}} -->

==See also==
*[http://www.instantriverside.com/riverside-ca-news/proposition-8-donors-protectmarriage-equality-ca/2008/09/30/ TV News report on donations from 'Yes on Proposition 8' supporters]
*[[The Briggs Initiative]]
*[[California state elections, November 2008]]
*[[Same-sex marriage in California]]


==References==
==References==
{{reflist|2}}
{{reflist}}


==External links==
==External links==
*[http://www.electiontrack.com/prop8.php Proposition 8 Support and Opposition Financial Contributions]
*[http://www.ag.ca.gov/cms_pdfs/initiatives/i737_07-0068_Initiative.pdf Scan of Initiative] from [[California Attorney General]] website
*[http://www.noonprop8.com No On Prop. 8], official website against Proposition 8
*[http://www.protectmarriage.com/ ProtectMarriage.com], organizational sponsor of Proposition 8
*[http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/argu-rebut/argu-rebutt8.htm Arguments and Rebuttals], Official Voter Information Guide
*[http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S147999.PDF S147999] The full text of S147999, the decision from the [[California Supreme Court]], [[May 15]], [[2008]]
*[http://www.sendspace.com/file/inv1b3/ REPLY] Reply Brief in BENNETT v. BOWEN (HOLLINGSWORTH) S165420


{{Shire of Litchfield Suburbs and Towns}}
{{CA2008elections}}

{{coord missing|Australia}}


[[Category:California ballot propositions, 2008|8]]
[[Category:Suburbs of Darwin]]
[[Category:Same-sex marriage in the United States]]
[[Category:LGBT law in the United States]]
[[Category:LGBT rights in California]]

Revision as of 12:11, 10 October 2008

Black Jungle
Darwin, Northern Territory
Population0 (SAL 2016)[1][2]

Black Jungle is an outer suburban area in Darwin. The name of the locality derived from "Black Jungle" which first appeared on a plan of the "Umpity Doo Homestead" block, Agricultural Lease No 28 in 1910.[3]

References

  1. ^ Australian Bureau of Statistics (27 June 2017). "Black Jungle (suburb and locality)". Australian Census 2016. Edit this at Wikidata
  2. ^ Australian Bureau of Statistics (27 June 2017). "Black Jungle (suburb and locality)". Australian Census 2016 QuickStats. Retrieved 28 June 2022. Edit this at Wikidata
  3. ^ Black Jungle (Locality)

External links

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2008_California_Proposition_8&oldid=244355551"