View source for 2008 California Proposition 8

{{Short description|Successful referendum on banning same-sex marriage}}
{{Redirect|Proposition 8|the 2018 Proposition|2018 California Proposition 8|other uses|Proposition 8 (disambiguation)}}
{{pp-semi-indef}}
{{Infobox referendum
| name = Proposition 8
| country = California
| title = '''''Eliminates Rights of Same-Sex Couples to Marry'''''
|yes = 7,001,084
|no = 6,401,482
|total = 13,743,177
| electorate = 17,304,091
| turnoutpct = 79.42
| map = {{switcher
| [[File:2008 California Proposition 8 results map by county.svg|300px]]
| County results
| [[File:2008 California Proposition 8 results map by congressional district.svg|300px]]
| Congressional district results
}}
| mapcaption =
{{col-begin}}
{{col-2}}
'''Yes'''
{{legend|#47729E|70%–80% |border=1px #AAAAAA solid}}
{{legend|#7D9CBB|60%–70% |border=1px #AAAAAA solid}}
{{legend|#B6C8D9|50%–60% |border=1px #AAAAAA solid}}
{{col-2}}
'''No'''
{{legend|#8B8B54|70%–80% |border=1px #AAAAAA solid}}
{{legend|#BCBC83|60%–70% |border=1px #AAAAAA solid}}
{{legend|#DEDEBD|50%–60% |border=1px #AAAAAA solid}}
{{col-end}}
| mapdivision =
| notes = Sources:<ref>[https://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/sov/2008-general/ssov/10-ballot-measures-statewide-summary-by-county.pdf 2008 Election in California]</ref><ref>[https://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/sov/2008-general/3_voter_part_stats_by_county.pdf VOTER PARTICIPATION STATISTICS BY COUNTY]</ref>
|date=November 4, 2008}}
{{ElectionsCA}}

'''Proposition 8''', known informally as '''Prop 8''', was a [[California ballot proposition]] and a [[constitutional amendment|state constitutional amendment]] intended to ban same-sex marriage; it passed in the [[California state elections, November 2008|November 2008 California state elections]] and was later overturned in court. The proposition was created by opponents of [[Same-sex marriage in California|same-sex marriage]] in advance<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.christianpost.com/news/pro-family-group-says-effort-to-ban-calif-gay-marriage-looks-strong-31814/ |title=Pro-Family Group Says Effort to Ban Calif. Gay 'Marriage' Looks 'Strong' |publisher=Christianpost.com |date=2008-04-05 |access-date=2013-11-01}}</ref> of the [[California Supreme Court]]'s May 2008 appeal ruling, ''[[In re Marriage Cases]]'', which followed the short-lived [[San Francisco 2004 same-sex weddings|2004 same-sex weddings controversy]] and found the previous ban on same-sex marriage ([[2000 California Proposition 22|Proposition 22]], 2000) [[unconstitutional]]. Proposition 8 was ultimately ruled unconstitutional by a federal court (on different grounds) in 2010, although the court decision did not go into effect until June 26, 2013, following the conclusion of proponents' appeals.

Proposition 8 countermanded the 2008 ruling by adding the same provision as in Proposition 22 to the [[California Constitution]], providing that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California", thereby superseding the 2008 ruling.<ref name="text" /><ref name="sos.ca.gov" /><ref name="Text of Proposition 8">[http://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/past/2008/general/text-proposed-laws/text-of-proposed-laws.pdf#prop8 Text of Proposition 8] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130418150058/http://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/past/2008/general/text-proposed-laws/text-of-proposed-laws.pdf#prop8 |date=2013-04-18 }}, Official Voter Information Guide (draft copy). Retrieved July 28, 2008</ref> As an amendment, it was ruled constitutional by the [[California Supreme Court]] in ''[[Strauss v. Horton]]'' in 2009, on the grounds that it "carved out a limited [or 'narrow'] exception to the state equal protection clause"; in his dissent, Justice [[Carlos R. Moreno]] wrote that exceptions to the [[equal protection clause]] could not be made by any majority since its whole purpose was to protect minorities against the will of a majority.

Legal challenges to Proposition 8 were presented by opponents quickly after its approval. Following affirmation by the state courts, two same-sex couples filed a lawsuit against the initiative in the [[United States District Court for the Northern District of California]] in the case ''[[Perry v. Schwarzenegger]]'' (later ''Hollingsworth v. Perry''). In August 2010, Chief Judge [[Vaughn Walker]] ruled that the amendment was unconstitutional under both the [[Due Process Clause|Due Process]] and [[Equal Protection Clause|Equal Protection]] Clauses of the [[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Fourteenth Amendment]],<ref>{{cite news |title=Judge strikes down Prop. 8, allows gay marriage in California |url=http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/08/prop8-gay-marriage.html |work=[[Los Angeles Times]] |date=August 4, 2010 |access-date=February 22, 2012}}</ref> since it purported to ''re-remove'' rights from a disfavored class only, with no [[Rational basis review|rational basis]]. The official proponents' justifications for the measure were analyzed in over fifty pages covering eighty [[Question of fact|findings of fact]]. The state government supported the ruling and refused to defend the law.<ref name="scopinion">{{cite web|url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-144_8ok0.pdf |title=Hollingsworth et al. v. Perry et al. Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit No. 12–144. Argued March 26, 2013—Decided June 26, 2013 |access-date=2013-12-03}}</ref> The ruling was [[stay of execution|stayed]] pending appeal by the proponents of the initiative. On February 7, 2012, the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit|Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals]], in a 2–1 decision, reached the same conclusion as the district court, but on narrower grounds. The court ruled that it was unconstitutional for California to grant marriage rights to same-sex couples, only to take them away shortly after. The ruling was stayed pending appeal to the United States Supreme Court.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2012/02/07/1016696com.pdf |title=No. 10-16606 |date=February 7, 2012 |website=US Courts |access-date=April 17, 2021}}</ref>

On June 26, 2013, the [[Supreme Court of the United States]] issued its decision on the appeal in the case ''[[Hollingsworth v. Perry]]'', ruling that proponents of initiatives such as Proposition 8 did not possess [[Standing (law)|legal standing]] in their own right to defend the resulting law in [[United States federal courts|federal court]], either to the Supreme Court or (previously) to the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit|Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals]]. Therefore, the Supreme Court vacated the decision of the Ninth Circuit, and remanded the case for further proceedings. The decision left the district court's 2010 ruling intact.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/26/19155307-prop-8-ruling-explained-why-gay-marriage-will-resume-in-california |title=Prop 8 ruling explained: Why gay marriage will resume in California. NBC June 26, 2013 |publisher=[[NBC News]] |date=2013-06-26 |access-date=2013-12-03}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last=Savage |first=David G. |url=https://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-prop-8-supreme-court-ruling-20130626,0,5931694.story |title=Prop. 8: Supreme Court clears way for gay marriage in California. Los Angeles Times June 26, 2013 Politics Now |work=[[Los Angeles Times]] |date=2013-06-26 |access-date=2013-12-03}}</ref><ref name="nytbetweenlines">{{cite web|url=https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/06/26/us/annotated-supreme-court-decision-on-proposition-8.html|title=Guide to the Supreme Court Decision on Proposition 8.|first=John|last=Schwartz|date=26 June 2013|via=NYTimes.com}}</ref> On June 28, 2013, the Ninth Circuit, on remand, dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and dissolved their previous stay of the district court's ruling, enabling Governor [[Jerry Brown]] to order same-sex marriages to resume.<ref name="latimes.com">{{cite news|last=Dolan |first=Maura |url=https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-prop-8-gay-marriage-20130628,0,1889039.story |title=Prop 8: Gay marriages can resume in California, court rules |work=[[Los Angeles Times]] |date=2013-06-28 |access-date=2013-12-03}}</ref>

The passage of Proposition 8 received widespread media coverage over the amendment's effect on the concurrent [[2008 United States presidential election|2008 presidential]] and [[2008 United States elections|congressional elections]], as well as the pre-election effects Proposition 8 had on California's reputation as a [[LGBT rights in California|historically LGBT-friendly state]] and the [[Same-sex marriage in the United States|same-sex marriage debate]] that had started after same-sex marriage [[Same-sex marriage in Massachusetts|was legalized in Massachusetts through a 2004 court decision]]. After the results were certified and same-sex marriages ceased, supporters of the initiative were [[Protests against Proposition 8 supporters|targeted by opponents]] with actions ranging from some opponents disclosing supporter donations and [[boycott]]ing proponents' businesses, to others [[Protests against Proposition 8 supporters#Death threats and vandalism|threatening supporters with death]] and [[vandalism|vandalizing]] churches.

A ballot proposal to formally repeal Proposition 8 from [[Constitution of California|California's constitution]] was passed by the [[California State Legislature]] in July 2023. The vote to formally repeal Proposition 8 was passed by nearly 63% of voters in the [[2024 California Proposition 3|2024 elections]].<ref>{{Cite news |last=Echelman |first=Adam |date=2024-11-05 |title=Same-sex marriage gains constitutional protections as California voters approve Prop. 3 |url=https://calmatters.org/politics/elections/2024/11/california-election-result-same-sex-marriage/ |access-date=2024-11-08 |work=CalMatters |language=en-US}}</ref>

==Overview==
In 2000, the [[State of California]] adopted [[California Proposition 22 (2000)|Proposition 22]] which, as an ordinary statute, forbade recognition or licensing of [[same-sex marriage]]s in the state. During February and March 2004, [[San Francisco]] [[Mayor of San Francisco|Mayor]] [[Gavin Newsom]] directed the licensing of same-sex marriages on the basis of the state's [[equal protection clause]], prompted also by recent events including [[George W. Bush]]'s [[State of the Union|proposed constitutional ban]], a possible legal case by Campaign for California Families (CCF), and a [[Supreme Court of Massachusetts]] ruling deeming same-sex marriage bans unconstitutional and permitting them from May 2004. While only lasting a month before being overruled, this was supported by other cities such as [[San Jose, California|San Jose]],<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.chicagotribune.com/2004/03/10/san-jose-recognizes-gay-marriage/ |title=San Jose recognizes gay marriage |newspaper=Chicago Tribune |date=March 10, 2004 |access-date=February 21, 2012}}</ref> gained global attention, and led to the case ''[[In re Marriage Cases]]'', in which Proposition 22 was found ([[San Francisco County Superior Court]], March 14, 2005) and confirmed upon appeal ([[California Supreme Court]], May 15, 2008) to be unconstitutional.

Proposition 8 was created by opponents of same-sex marriage prior to the final ruling on ''In re Marriage Cases'' as a voter ballot initiative, and voted on at the time of the [[California state elections, November 2008|November 2008 elections]]. Its wording was precisely the same as Proposition 22, which as an ordinary statute, had been invalidated in 2008, but by re-positioning it as a state [[constitutional amendment]] rather than a legislative [[statute]], it was able to circumvent the ruling from ''[[In re Marriage Cases]]''.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_18|title=California Constitution Article XVIII|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081210120948/http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_18|archive-date=2008-12-10}}</ref> The proposition did not affect [[Domestic partnership in California|domestic partnerships]] in California,<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.ocregister.com/articles/domestic-gay-marriage-2299598-couples-married|title=Gays would lose few legal rights with marriage ban|newspaper=[[Orange County Register]]|author=Wisckol, Martin|date=February 4, 2009|access-date=February 12, 2009|archive-date=February 12, 2009|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090212125613/http://www.ocregister.com/articles/domestic-gay-marriage-2299598-couples-married}}</ref> nor (following subsequent legal rulings) did it reverse same-sex marriages that had been performed [[:Ex post facto#United States|during the interim period]] May to November 2008 (i.e. after ''In re Marriage Cases'' but before Proposition 8).<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/27/us/27marriage.html|title=California High Court Upholds Gay Marriage Ban|work=The New York Times|author=John Schwartz|date=May 26, 2009|access-date=December 17, 2009}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.ftb.ca.gov/individuals/same_sex_marriage/index.shtml|archive-url=https://wayback.archive-it.org/all/20081026065132/http://www.ftb.ca.gov/individuals/same_sex_marriage/index.shtml|archive-date=October 26, 2008|title=Same-Sex Married Couples|publisher=California Franchise Tax Board|date=2009-05-26|access-date=December 17, 2009}}</ref><ref name="wsj">{{cite news|last=Fowler|first=Geoffrey A.|title=Court Rejects State Ban On Gay Marriage|newspaper=[[The Wall Street Journal]]|date=February 8, 2012|author2=Bravin, Jess|pages=A1, A4}}</ref>

Proposition 8 came into immediate effect on November 5, 2008, the day after the elections. Demonstrations and protests occurred across the state and nation. Same-sex couples and government entities, including couples who had married before then, filed numerous [[lawsuit]]s with the [[California Supreme Court]] challenging the proposition's validity and effect on previously administered same-sex marriages. In ''[[Strauss v. Horton]]'', the California Supreme Court upheld Proposition 8, but allowed the existing same-sex marriages to stand (under the [[grandfather clause]] principle). (Justice [[Carlos R. Moreno]] dissented that exceptions to the [[equal protection clause]] could not be made by any majority since its whole purpose was to protect minorities against the will of a majority.)

Although upheld in state court, Proposition 8 was ruled unconstitutional by the federal courts. In ''[[Perry v. Schwarzenegger]]'', [[United States District Court]] Judge [[Vaughn Walker]] overturned Proposition 8 on August 4, 2010, ruling that it violated both the [[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Due Process]] and [[Equal Protection]] clauses of the [[United States Constitution|U.S. Constitution]].<ref>{{cite news|title=Ruling by United States District Court|url=http://www.sfgate.com/chronicle/acrobat/2010/08/04/Prop-8-Ruling-FINAL.pdf | newspaper=San Francisco Chronicle |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20120307020106/http://www.sfgate.com/chronicle/acrobat/2010/08/04/Prop-8-Ruling-FINAL.pdf |archive-date= 2012-03-07 }}</ref> Walker issued a stay ([[injunction]]) against enforcing Proposition 8 and a [[Stay of execution|stay]] to determine suspension of his ruling pending appeal.<ref name="SFChron strikes down">{{cite news|last1=Egelko|first1=Bob|last2=Bulwa|first2=Demian|title=Judge strikes down ban on same-sex marriage|url=http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/08/04/MNQS1EOR3D.DTL&tsp=1|work=San Francisco Chronicle|date=August 4, 2010|access-date=August 4, 2010}}</ref><ref name="FOX40 article">{{cite news |last= Keys |first= Matthew |title= Federal Judge: Same Sex Marriage Ban Under Proposition 8 Violates Constitution |url= http://www.fox40.com/news/headlines/ktxl-news-prop8verdict0804,0,598175.story |work= FOX40.com |date= August 4, 2010 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20120807063037/http://www.fox40.com/news/headlines/ktxl-news-prop8verdict0804%2C0%2C598175.story |archive-date= 2012-08-07 }}</ref> The State of California did not appeal the ruling (with which it had agreed anyway) leaving the initiative proponents and one county to seek an appeal.

On appeal, a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals panel ruled the county had no right of appeal, and asked the California Supreme Court to rule whether the proponents of Prop 8 had the right to appeal (known as "[[standing (law)|standing]]") if the state did not do so. The California Supreme Court ruled that they did. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the federal district court's decision on February 7, 2012,<ref>{{cite news| url=http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/02/gay-marriage-prop-8s-ban-ruled-unconstitutional.html| title=Prop. 8: Gay-marriage ban unconstitutional, court rules|work=Los Angeles Times | date=February 7, 2012| access-date=February 7, 2011 }}</ref> but the stay remained in place as appeals continued to the [[U.S. Supreme Court]],<ref>{{cite news |url= http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/08/16/BAEE1EUOIF.DTL |newspaper= San Francisco Chronicle |title= Prop. 8: Appeals court puts ruling on hold |first1= Demian |last1= Bulwa |first2= Kevin |last2= Fagan |first3= Rachel |last3= Gordon |date= August 22, 2010 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20120304103933/http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=%2Fc%2Fa%2F2010%2F08%2F16%2FBAEE1EUOIF.DTL |archive-date= 2012-03-04 }}</ref> which heard oral arguments in the appeal ''[[Hollingsworth v. Perry]]'' on March 26, 2013.<ref name="oral">{{cite news |url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/12-144.htm |title=''Hollingsworth v. Perry'', Proceedings and Orders |publisher=[[Supreme Court of the United States]] |access-date=January 7, 2013}}</ref> On June 26, 2013, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and ruled that the Ninth Circuit had erred in allowing the previous appeal, since in line with [[Article Three of the United States Constitution|Article III]] of the [[United States Constitution|Constitution]] and [[Case or Controversy Clause#Interpretation|many prior cases]] unanimous on the point, being an initiative proponents is not enough by itself to have federal court standing or appeal a ruling in federal court. This left the original federal district court ruling against Proposition 8 as the outcome, and same sex marriages resumed almost immediately afterwards.

==History of the ballot initiative==
<!--Who? began collecting signatures when? and why? Suggestions for topic sentence to be added here-->
In 2005, the site [[ProtectMarriage.com]] was created as the "Official website for the California Constitutional Marriage Amendment" and launched a campaign to pass a [[California ballot proposition|ballot proposition]] to constitutionally prohibit same-sex marriage.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20071007140658/http://protectmarriage.com/newsdetail.php?newsId=90 "Countdown To Protect Marriage"]</ref> In 2007, [[ProtectMarriage.com]] tried and failed to get Initiative 1254, a proposed ballot proposition to constitutionally prohibit same-sex marriage on the 2008 California ballot.<ref>[https://repository.uclawsf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2440&context=ca_ballot_inits Limit On Marriage. Constitutional Amendment.]</ref>

On November 29, 2007, was the official summary date for '''''California Marriage Protection''''', also called '''''Limit On Marriage. Constitutional Amendment''''' and numbered '''07-0068''' by the [[Attorney General of California]] and '''Initiative 1298''' by [[California Secretary of State]]. In order to qualify for the ballot, a measure needed 694,354 petition signatures, an amount equal to 8 percent of the votes cast during the [[2006 California gubernatorial election]]. In late April 2008, ProtectMarriage.com submitted a petition containing 1,120,801 signatures, which was 426,447 more signatures than was necessary to put the measure on the ballot. On June 2, 2008, [[California Secretary of State]] [[Debra Bowen]] said a [[random sample]] check of signatures submitted by the measure's sponsors showed that they had gathered enough names to qualify and certified it as the '''eighth initiative''' for the November 4, 2008, general election ballot.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20080615021154/http://www.sos.ca.gov/executive/press_releases/2008/DB08_068.pdf Secretary of State Debra Bowen Certifies Eighth Measure for November 4, 2008, General Election]</ref><ref>[https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna24939738 Gay marriage ban qualifies for California ballot]</ref><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=June 2, 2008|work=California Secretary of State|access-date=August 7, 2008|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080910135125/http://www.sos.ca.gov/admin/press-releases/2008/DB08-068.pdf|archive-date=September 10, 2008}}</ref>

Proposition 8 (ballot title: '''Eliminates Rights of Same-Sex Couples to Marry. Initiative Constitutional Amendment'''; originally titled the "California Marriage Protection Act")<ref>Sayre, Ben; Bode, Leticia; Shah, Dhavan; Wilcox, Dave; and Shah, Chirag (2010) "Agenda Setting in a Digital Age: Tracking Attention to California Proposition 8 in Social Media, Online News and Conventional News", Policy & Internet: Vol. 2: Iss. 2, Article 2, Page 11. {{doi|10.2202/1944-2866.1040}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=Text of Proposed Laws|url=http://vig.cdn.sos.ca.gov/2008/general/text-proposed-laws/text-of-proposed-laws.pdf#prop8|work=Official Voter Information Guide|publisher=State of California|access-date=August 28, 2012|page=128|quote=SECTION 1. Title: This measure shall be known and may be cited as the "California Marriage Protection Act."}}</ref> was a California ballot proposition that changed the California Constitution to add a new section 7.5 to Article I, which reads: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."<ref name="text">[http://www.ag.ca.gov/cms_pdfs/initiatives/i737_07-0068_Initiative.pdf Scan of Initiative filing] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150425203101/http://ag.ca.gov/cms_pdfs/initiatives/i737_07-0068_Initiative.pdf |date=2015-04-25 }} from [[California Attorney General]]'s web site</ref><ref name="sos.ca.gov">"[http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/elections_j.htm#2008General Propositions that are on the November 4, 2008 General Election Ballot] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090617213215/http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/elections_j.htm |date=June 17, 2009 }}", California Secretary of State</ref><ref name="Text of Proposition 8" /> This change restricted the definition of marriage to opposite-sex couples, and eliminated same-sex couples' right to marry, thereby overriding portions of the ruling of ''[[In re Marriage Cases]]'' by "carving out an exception to the preexisting scope of the privacy and [[due process]] clauses"<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/S168047.pdf|title= California Supreme Court Concurring Decision by Werdeger|page=35|author=Werdegar, Kathryn Mickle|date=May 26, 2009|access-date=February 11, 2012}}</ref> of the state constitution.

===Full text===
Proposition 8 consisted of two sections. Its full text was:<ref>[http://www.ag.ca.gov/cms_pdfs/initiatives/i737_07-0068_Initiative.pdf Scan of Initiative] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150425203101/http://ag.ca.gov/cms_pdfs/initiatives/i737_07-0068_Initiative.pdf |date=2015-04-25 }} from [[California Attorney General]] website.</ref>
<blockquote cite="https://web.archive.org/web/20150425203101/http://ag.ca.gov/cms_pdfs/initiatives/i737_07-0068_Initiative.pdf">
'''SECTION 1. Title'''
{{block indent|This measure shall be known and may be cited as the "California Marriage Protection Act."}}
'''SECTION 2. Article I, Section 7.5 is added to the California Constitution, to read:'''
{{block indent|Sec. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.}}
</blockquote>

===Pre-election legal challenges===
====Petition to remove proposition from ballot====
{{Further|California Constitution#Amendments and revisions}}
On July 16, 2008, the California Supreme Court denied a petition calling for the removal of Proposition 8 from the November ballot. The petition asserted the proposition should not be on the ballot on the grounds it was a constitutional revision that only the legislature or a constitutional convention could place before voters. Opponents also argued that the petitions circulated to qualify the measure for the ballot inaccurately summarized its effect. The court denied the petition without comment.<ref name="latimes">{{cite news|url=https://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=July 17, 2008|work=Los Angeles Times|access-date=August 7, 2008}}</ref> As a general rule, it is improper for courts to adjudicate pre-election challenges to a measure's substantive validity.<ref name="Costa">Costa v. [[Superior court|Superior Court]] (2006) 37 Cal.4th 986, 1005–1006.</ref> The question of whether Proposition 8 is a constitutional amendment or constitutional revision was ruled on by the California Supreme Court on May 26, 2009, and found that it was not a revision and therefore would be upheld. They also declared that the same-sex marriages performed prior to the passing of Prop 8 would remain valid.<ref name="prop-8-revision-amendment">{{cite web
 |title = Official Prop 8 Ruling Document
 |publisher = SFist
 |date = May 26, 2009
 |url = http://sfist.com/2009/05/26/official_prop_8_ruling_document.php
 |access-date = May 26, 2009
 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20090529082536/http://sfist.com/2009/05/26/official_prop_8_ruling_document.php
 |archive-date = May 29, 2009
}}
</ref>

====Challenge to title and summary====
The measure was titled: "Eliminates Rights of Same-Sex Couples to Marry. Initiative Constitutional Amendment." The ballot summary read that the measure "changes the California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in California."<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=November 29, 2007 |access-date=June 23, 2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080624224338/http://ag.ca.gov/cms_attachments/initiatives/pdfs/i737_07-0068_title_and_summary.pdf |archive-date=June 24, 2008 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/past/2008/general/title-sum/prop8-title-sum.htm |format=PDF |title=Ballot Label (Proposition 8) |publisher=California Secretary of State |date=July 3, 2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090430043558/http://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/past/2008/general/title-sum/prop8-title-sum.htm |archive-date=April 30, 2009 }}</ref>

Proponents of the measure objected to the wording of the ballot title and summary on the grounds that they were argumentative and prejudicial. The resulting legal petition ''Jansson v. Bowen''<ref name="LAT0729">{{cite news | last=Garrison | first=Jessica | title=Opponents of gay marriage say they will sue over changed wording in Proposition 8 |work=Los Angeles Times|date=July 29, 2008}}</ref> was dismissed August 7, 2008, by California Superior Court Judge Timothy M. Frawley, who ruled that "the title and summary includes an essentially verbatim recital of the text of the measure itself",<ref name="CA Election code">{{cite web | title = California Elections Code | url = http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=elec&group=09001-10000&file=9050-9054 | publisher = The State of California | access-date = December 6, 2008 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20090730233240/http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=elec&group=09001-10000&file=9050-9054 | archive-date = July 30, 2009 }}</ref> and that the change was valid because the measure did, in fact, eliminate a right upheld by the California Supreme Court.
[[File:Jerry Brown rally F.jpg|thumb|200px|As California State Attorney General, Jerry Brown (shown here campaigning for Governor in 2010) had the ballot's description and title changed from "Limit on Marriage" to "Eliminates the right of same-sex couples to marry".<ref>{{cite news |title= Jerry Brown's wording may trip up Prop. 8|author1=Phillip Matier |author2=Andrew Ross |url= http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Jerry-Brown-s-wording-may-trip-up-Prop-8-3188163.php|newspaper= San Francisco Chronicle|date= October 26, 2008 |access-date=June 27, 2013}}</ref>]]
California Attorney General [[Jerry Brown]] explained that the changes were required to more "accurately reflect the measure" in light of the California Supreme Court's intervening ''In re Marriage Cases'' decision.<ref name="superiorcourt">{{cite court
|litigants = Jansson v. Bowen, et al.
|vol =
|reporter =
|opinion = Petition for Writ of Mandate, Order After Hearing
|pinpoint =
|court = Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento
|date = August 7, 2008
|url= http://ag.ca.gov/cms_attachments/press/pdfs/n1597_ruling_on_proposition_8.pdf }}</ref>

On July 22, 2008, Proposition 8 supporters mounted a legal challenge to the revised ballot title and summary, contending that Attorney General Brown inserted "language [...] so inflammatory that it will unduly prejudice voters against the measure".<ref name="CNS citation">{{cite news|url=https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/13415/lawsuit-filed-to-challenge-california-ballots-inflammatory-rewording-of-marriage-amendment|title=Lawsuit filed to challenge California ballot's 'inflammatory' rewording of marriage amendment|date=August 1, 2008|work=CNA|publisher=Catholic News Agency|access-date=March 28, 2009|archive-date=February 14, 2009|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090214114326/http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=13415}}</ref> Supporters claimed that research showed that an attorney general had never used an active verb like "eliminates" in the title of a [[Referendum|ballot measure]] in the past fifty years in which ballot measures have been used.<ref name="CNS citation" /> Representatives of the attorney general produced twelve examples of ballot measures using the word "eliminates" and vouched for the neutrality and accuracy of the ballot language.<ref name="azcentralsummary">{{cite news|url=https://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2008/07/28/20080728gaymarriagecalif0728-ON.html|title=Gay marriage foes challenge ballot wording|last=Garrison|first=Jessica|date=July 28, 2008|work=AZ Central.com|access-date=August 7, 2008}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url= http://blogcabinca.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/A.G.%20RJN.pdf |title= Request for judicial notice in support of opposition to petition for writ of mandate |publisher= Attorney General of the State of California |date= August 4, 2008 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20090327045034/http://blogcabinca.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/A.G.%20RJN.pdf |archive-date= 2009-03-27 }}</ref>

On August 8, 2008, the California Superior Court turned down the legal challenge, affirming the new title and summary, 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 Superior Court based their decision on the previous ''Marriages Cases'' ruling in which the California Supreme Court held that same-sex couples have a [[constitutional right]] to marry under the California Constitution.<ref name="superiorcourt" /><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=Judge refuses to order change in Prop. 8 title|last=Egelko|first=Bob|date=August 8, 2008|work=San Francisco Chronicle|access-date=August 8, 2008}}</ref> That same day, proponents of Prop. 8 filed an emergency appeal with the state [[Appeal|appeals court]]. The Court of Appeal denied their petition later that day and supporters did not seek a 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=August 12, 2008}}</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=August 8, 2008}}</ref> The deadline for court action on the wording of ballot summaries and arguments in the voter pamphlet was August 11, 2008.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/08/12/BADU128V6V.DTL|title=Prop. 8 backers drop challenge on wording|work=San Francisco Chronicle|date=August 12, 2008|access-date=October 25, 2008 | first=Bob | last=Egelko}}</ref>

While turning down the challenge to the title and summary, the California Superior Court also found that the Yes on 8 campaign had overstated its ballot argument on the measure's impact on public schools and ordered a minor change in wording. The original arguments included a claim that the Supreme Court's legalization of same-sex marriage requires teachers to tell their students, as young as kindergarten age, that same-sex marriage is the same as opposite-sex marriage. The court said the Yes on 8 argument was false because instruction on marriage is not required and parents can withdraw their children. The court said the ballot argument could be preserved by rewording it to state that teachers "may" or "could" be required to tell children there is no difference between same-sex and opposite-sex marriage.<ref name="sfgatetitleupheld" />

==Campaign==
===Campaign funding and spending===
The pro- and anti-Prop 8 campaigns spent a combined $106 million on the campaign.<ref name="Wilson">Reid Wilson, [https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2014/05/17/the-most-expensive-ballot-initiatives/ The most expensive ballot initiatives], ''Washington Post'' (May 17, 2014).</ref> This was not the most expensive California ballot proposition that year, however; the 2008 campaigns for and against [[California Propositions 94, 95, 96, and 97 (2008)|Propositions 94, 95, 96, and 97]], dealing with the expansion of [[Native American gaming|Native American gambling]], surpassed Prop 8, with combined expenditures of $172 million.<ref name="Wilson"/>

By election day, volunteers on both sides spent thousands of hours getting their messages across to the state's 17.3 million registered voters.<ref>{{cite news |url= http://www.gilroydispatch.com/news/city_local_government/calif-gay-marriage-ban-sparks-war-of-the-rings/article_bcbd2298-121f-513d-88fd-909e8d556d68.html |title= California marriage initiative sparks 'War of the Rings' |agency=Associated Press |work= Gilroy Dispatch |last= Leff |first= Lisa |date= October 2, 2008 |access-date= August 23, 2016 }}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/ror/ror-pages/15day-presgen-08/hist-reg-stats.pdf |title=Record 17.3 million Californians registered to vote |publisher=California Secretary of State |date=October 20, 2008 |access-date=August 2, 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121017222247/http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/ror/ror-pages/15day-presgen-08/hist-reg-stats.pdf |archive-date=October 17, 2012 }}</ref> The campaigns for and against Proposition 8 raised $39.0 million ($11.3 million or 29.1% from outside California) and $44.1 million ($13.2 million or 30.0% from outside California), respectively,<ref name="latproj">{{cite news | url=http://projects.latimes.com/prop8/ | title=Proposition 8: Who gave in the gay marriage battle? | work=Los Angeles Times | access-date=June 30, 2012}}</ref> from over 64,000 people in all 50 states and more than 20 foreign countries, setting a new record nationally for a [[social policy]] initiative and more than for every other race in the country in spending except the presidential contest.<ref>{{cite magazine|url=https://www.usnews.com/articles/news/national/2008/10/29/california-same-sex-marriage-initiative-campaigns-shatter-spending-records.html|title=California Same-Sex Marriage Initiative Campaigns Shatter Spending Records|magazine=U.S. News & World Report|date=October 29, 2008|access-date=October 29, 2008}}</ref> Contributions were much greater than those of previous same-sex marriage initiatives. Between 2004 and 2006, 22 such measures were on ballots around the country, and donations to all of them combined totaled $31.4 million, according to [[OpenSecrets]].<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-marriagemoney25-2008oct25,0,2856145.story|title=Proposition 8 proponents and foes raise $60 million|work=Los Angeles Times|date=October 25, 2008| first1=Dan | last1=Morain | first2=Jessica | last2=Garrison}}</ref> A [[ProtectMarriage.com]] spokeswoman estimated that 36 companies which had previously contributed to Equality California were targeted to receive a letter requesting similar donations to ProtectMarriage.com.<ref name="abbott-letter">{{cite web|last=Prentice |first=Ron |author2=Mark Jansson |author3=Edward Dolejsi |author4=Andrew Pugno |title=Letter addressed to Abbott and Associates |publisher=towleroad.com |date=October 20, 2008 |url=http://www.towleroad.com/files/prop8threatletter.pdf |access-date=August 2, 2013 |archive-url=https://www.webcitation.org/6IZ4moNth?url=http://www.towleroad.com/files/prop8threatletter.pdf |archive-date=August 2, 2013 }}</ref><ref name="ap-business-target">{{cite news |last=Leff |first=Lisa |title=Calif. gay marriage ban backers target businesses |agency=Associated Press |date=October 23, 2008 |url=http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/10/23/state/n145556D05.DTL&tsp=1 |access-date=October 23, 2008 |work=The San Francisco Chronicle |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081025140332/http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=%2Fn%2Fa%2F2008%2F10%2F23%2Fstate%2Fn145556D05.DTL |archive-date=October 25, 2008 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web|access-date=November 13, 2008|url=http://www.eqca.org/site/pp.asp?c=kuLRJ9MRKrH&b=4026491|title=Equality California Sponsors|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081219003909/http://www.eqca.org/site/pp.asp?c=kuLRJ9MRKrH&b=4026491|archive-date=December 19, 2008}}</ref><ref name="kfmb-business-target">{{cite news|title=Threatening Letters Spark New Prop 8 Controversy |publisher=KFMB-TV, San Diego |date=October 23, 2008 |url=http://www.cbs8.com/stories/story.144185.html |access-date=October 23, 2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081024194454/http://www.cbs8.com/stories/story.144185.html |archive-date=October 24, 2008 }}</ref>

The California Fair Political Practices Commission fined the [[the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints|LDS Church]] in 2010 for failing to follow campaign disclosure policies during the last two weeks leading up to the election, which amounted to $37,000 in non-monetary contributions. They were fined $5,538.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/06/mormon-church-to-be-fined-by-state-political-commission-over-proposition-8.html|title=Mormon Church to be fined by state political commission over Proposition 8|work=Los Angeles Times|date=June 9, 2010|access-date=June 9, 2010|first=Ruben|last=Vives}}</ref>

Both proponents and opponents of Proposition 8 made significant use of online tactics for campaigning. For example, over 800 videos were posted on YouTube, most consisting of original content and most taking a position against the Proposition. A greater proportion of 'Yes on 8' videos were scripted and professionally produced. Many 'No on 8' videos recorded demonstrations in the aftermath of the election.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Thorson|first=Kjerstin|author2=Brian Ekdale |author3=Porismita Borah |author4=Kang Namkoong |author5=Chirag Shah |title=YouTube and Proposition 8: A case study in video activism|journal=Information, Communication & Society|year=2010|volume=13|issue=3|page=325 |doi=10.1080/13691180903497060|s2cid=142856714}}</ref>

===Proponents===
[[File:Yeson8YardSign NoFrame.png|thumb|Official [[ProtectMarriage.com]] "Yes on 8" campaign sign<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.protectmarriage.com/action/yard-sign |title=ProtectMarriage.com "Get a Yard Sign"—the official "Yes on 8" sign. |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081022201015/http://www.protectmarriage.com/action/yard-sign |archive-date=October 22, 2008 }}</ref>]]

Proponents of the constitutional amendment argued that exclusively heterosexual marriage was "an essential institution of society", that leaving the constitution unchanged would "result in public schools teaching our kids that gay marriage is okay", and that gay people "do not have the right to redefine marriage for everyone else".<ref name="voterguide.sos.ca.gov">{{cite web| url=http://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/past/2008/general/argu-rebut/argu-rebutt8.htm| title=California General Election Tuesday November 4 Voter Information Guide| access-date=December 6, 2012| publisher=sos.ca.gov.| archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121118053915/http://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/past/2008/general/argu-rebut/argu-rebutt8.htm| archive-date=November 18, 2012}}</ref>

The ProtectMarriage.com organization sponsored the initiative that placed Proposition 8 on the ballot<ref name="ProtectMarriage.com">{{cite web |access-date=July 7, 2008 |url=http://www.protectmarriage.com/ |title=ProtectMarriage.com |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081010125329/http://www.protectmarriage.com/ |archive-date=October 10, 2008 |df=mdy-all }}</ref> and continues to support the measure. The measure also attracted the support of a number of political figures and religious organizations.

====Political figures====
[[Republican Party (United States)|Republican]] [[U.S. President|presidential]] nominee and [[United States Senate|U.S. Senator]] [[John McCain]] released a statement of support for the proposed constitutional amendment.<ref name="foxbusinessmccain">{{cite news|url=https://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=June 27, 2008|work=U.S. News & World Report|access-date=September 1, 2008}}</ref> Former [[Speaker (politics)|Speaker of the House]] [[Newt Gingrich]] released a video in support. Both characterized the court ruling requiring recognition of same sex marriage as being against the will of the people.<ref>{{cite news | first=Newt | last=Gingrich | title=Stop Imperial Judges...Support Proposition 8 | publisher=Newt Gingrich | url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73Q4V8WNF6k | access-date = October 1, 2008 }}</ref> A political action committee run by former Massachusetts governor [[Mitt Romney]], who personally supported the proposition, donated $10,000 to the [[National Organization for Marriage]] during their campaign for the proposition.<ref>{{cite news| url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/post/romney-under-fire-for-pac-donation-to-anti-gay-marriage-group/2012/03/30/gIQAm7QolS_blog.html | newspaper=The Washington Post | first=Dan | last=Eggen | title=Romney under fire for PAC donation to anti-gay marriage group | date=March 31, 2012}}</ref>

====Religious organizations====
The [[Roman Catholic Church]],<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.advocate.com/news/2008/08/08/catholic-bishops-endorse-prop-8|title=Catholic Bishops Endorse Prop. 8|access-date=January 22, 2014|date=2008-08-08}}</ref> as well as a Roman Catholic [[Laity|lay]] [[fraternal organization]], the [[Knights of Columbus]],<ref>{{cite press release|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|access-date=September 19, 2008}}</ref> firmly supported the measure. The bishops of the California Catholic Conference released a statement supporting the proposition,<ref>{{cite news | title=A Statement of the Catholic Bishops of California in Support of Proposition 8 | publisher=California Catholic Conference | url=http://www.cacatholic.org/index.php/issues2/family-life/marriage-public-policy/465-a-statement-of-the-catholic-bishops-of-california-in-support-of-proposition-8-a-constitutional-amendment-to-restore-the-definition-of-marriage-2 | access-date=January 22, 2014 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140202164147/http://www.cacatholic.org/index.php/issues2/family-life/marriage-public-policy/465-a-statement-of-the-catholic-bishops-of-california-in-support-of-proposition-8-a-constitutional-amendment-to-restore-the-definition-of-marriage-2 | archive-date=February 2, 2014 }}</ref> a position met with mixed reactions among church members, including clergy.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/14055/bishop-of-fresno-removes-priest-who-opposes-prop-8|title=Catholic Bishops Endorse Prop. 8|access-date=September 19, 2008|archive-date=February 14, 2009|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090214122316/http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=14055}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.calcatholic.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?id=63e2a05f-01a4-4613-b57e-09e5392dfa14 |title=I was Blackballed |access-date=February 2, 2009 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110708111904/http://www.calcatholic.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?id=63e2a05f-01a4-4613-b57e-09e5392dfa14 |archive-date=July 8, 2011 }}</ref>

[[George Hugh Niederauer]] as Archbishop of [[San Francisco]] campaigned in 2008 in favor of the Proposition, and claimed to have been instrumental in forging alliances between Catholics and [[Mormons]] to support the measure.<ref>Kuruvila, Matthai (November 10, 2008) [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/10/MNU1140AQQ.DTL "To Pass Measure, Catholics and Mormons Allied"]. San Francisco Chronicle. (Retrieved 11-10-08.)</ref> His successor, [[Salvatore Cordileone]] was regarded as instrumental in devising the initiative. Campaign finance records show he personally gave at least $6,000 to back the voter-approved ban<ref>[https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/27/salvatore-cordileone-gay-marriage_n_1712224.html Salvatore Cordileone, Gay Marriage Opponent And Prop. 8 Creator, Named Archbishop Of San Francisco], Huffington Post 7/27/2012</ref> and was instrumental in raising $1.5 million to put the proposition on the ballot.<ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Nancy-Pelosi-urges-S-F-archbishop-to-exit-5553084.php Nancy Pelosi urges S.F. archbishop to exit marriage march], San Francisco Chronicle, 6/14/14</ref> Subsequently, as archbishop of San Francisco, he has called publicly for an amendment to the US Constitution as "the only remedy in law against judicial activism" following the number of state same-sex marriage bans struck down by federal judges. He also attended and addressed the audience at the "March for Marriage", a rally opposing marriage for same-sex couples, in Washington, D.C., in June 2014.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://religionnews.com/2014/06/19/thousands-rally-u-s-capitol-gay-marriage/ |title=Thousands Rally at U.S. Capital Against Gay Marriage |last=Adams |first=Heather |date=June 19, 2014 |website=Religion News |access-date=April 17, 2021}}</ref>

In California's 2008 election the [[Knights of Columbus]] attracted media attention when they donated more than $1.4 million to Proposition 8.<ref name="scpr">{{cite web
| url = http://www.scpr.org/news/2012/02/07/31169/la-catholics-react-prop-8-decision-many-catholics-/
| title = LA Catholics react to Prop 8 decision; many Catholics strongly supported the proposition
| author = Shereen Marisol Meraji
| date = February 7, 2012
| publisher = 89.3 KPCC
| access-date = 2013-08-15
}}</ref> The Order was the largest financial supporter of the successful effort to maintain a legal definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman.<ref name="prop8">
{{cite web
|url=http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/Campaign/Committees/Detail.aspx?id=1302592&view=late1
|title=California Secretary of State – CalAccess – Campaign Finance
|publisher=California Secretary of State
| access-date = 2013-06-28
}}</ref>

[[File:Fresno - Prop 8 Rally.jpg|thumb|left|Rally for Yes on Prop 8 in [[Fresno, California|Fresno]]]]
[[The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints]]<ref name="same">{{cite web|url=https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/california-and-same-sex-marriage |title=California and Same-Sex Marriage|access-date=September 5, 2008|date=2008-06-30}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.heraldextra.com/content/view/280669/3/ |title=LDS Donate Millions to Fight Gay Marriage |access-date=September 17, 2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080918205109/http://www.heraldextra.com/content/view/280669/3/ |archive-date=September 18, 2008 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.washblade.com/2008/9-19/news/national/13307.cfm |title=Prop 8 supporters see surge in donations |access-date=September 19, 2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080921101854/http://www.washblade.com/2008/9-19/news/national/13307.cfm |archive-date=September 21, 2008 }}</ref> (LDS Church) also publicly supported the proposition. The [[First Presidency (LDS Church)|First Presidency]] of the church announced its support for Proposition 8 in a letter intended to be read in every congregation in California. In this letter, church members were encouraged to "do all you can to support the proposed constitutional amendment by donating of your means and time".<ref name="same" /> The church produced and broadcast to its congregations a program describing the support of the Proposition, and describing the timeline it proposes for what it describes as grassroots efforts to support the Proposition.<ref>{{cite web | url=https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/church-readies-members-on-proposition-8 | title=Church Readies Members on Proposition 8
| date=October 8, 2008 | access-date=February 24, 2009}}</ref> Local church leaders set organizational and monetary goals for their membership—sometimes quite specific—to fulfill this call.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.advocate.com/print_article_ektid67125.asp |title=The New Religious Right |publisher=The Advocate |author=Kirchick, James |access-date=June 18, 2009 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090214093449/http://www.advocate.com/print_article_ektid67125.asp |archive-date=February 14, 2009 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://messengerandadvocate.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/fp-letter.pdf|title=Preserving Traditional Marriage and Strengthening Families|publisher=[[The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints]]|date=June 20, 2008|access-date=June 18, 2009}}</ref> The response of church members to their leadership's appeals to donate money and volunteer time was very supportive,<ref>{{cite web | title = Preserving the Divine Institution of Marriage | publisher = The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints | url = http://www.preservingmarriage.org/ | access-date = October 24, 2008 | date = 2008-08-13 }}</ref> such that [[Latter Day Saint|Latter-day Saints]] provided a significant source for financial donations in support of the proposition, both inside and outside the State of California.<ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.heraldextra.com/content/view/280669/17/ | title=LDS donate millions to fight gay marriage | date=September 16, 2008 | access-date=October 30, 2008 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081019213322/http://www.heraldextra.com/content/view/280669/17/ | archive-date=October 19, 2008 }}</ref> LDS members contributed over $20 million,<ref>Moral Argument, Religion, and Same-Sex Marriage: Advancing the Public Good, Emily R. Gill, Jason Pierceson, page x (introduction)</ref> about 45% of out-of-state contributions to ProtectMarriage.com came from [[Utah]], over three times more than any other state.<ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.mercurynews.com/localnewsheadlines/ci_10806730 | title=Opponents of gay marriage ban ride wave of donations | date=October 24, 2008 | access-date=October 30, 2008}}</ref>
ProtectMarriage, the official proponent of Proposition 8, estimates that about half the donations they received came from Mormon sources, and that LDS church members made up somewhere between 80% and 90% of the volunteers for early door-to-door canvassing.<ref>{{cite news | url=https://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/15/us/politics/15marriage.html | title=Mormons Tipped Scale in Ban on Gay Marriage | date=November 14, 2008 | access-date=December 24, 2008 | work=The New York Times | first1=Jesse | last1=McKinley | first2=Kirk | last2=Johnson}}</ref>

Other religious organizations that supported Proposition 8 include the [[Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America]],<ref name="orthodox">{{cite web|url=http://www.forward.com/articles/14106/|title= Orthodox Join Fight Against Gay Nuptials|work=[[The Forward]]|date= 29 August 2008|access-date=September 19, 2008}}</ref> [[Eastern Orthodox Church]],<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.antiochian.org/node/18321|title=Orthodox Christian Bishops of California in support of Proposition 8}}</ref> a group of [[Evangelicalism|Evangelical Christians]] led by [[Jim Garlow]] and [[Miles McPherson]],<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/426077.aspx|title=Christian Marriage Movement's Ground Zero|access-date=September 19, 2008}}</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 |access-date=September 19, 2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081202142508/http://www.washingtonblade.com/2008/9-19/news/national/13307.cfm?page=2 |archive-date=December 2, 2008 }}</ref> and the [[National Organization for Marriage]].<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/sep/16/usa.gayrights|title=California's ballot battle over gay marriage shows US cultural divide|access-date=September 17, 2008 |work=The Guardian | location=London | date=September 16, 2008 | first=McClatchy | last=Newspapers}}</ref> [[Rick Warren]], pastor of [[Saddleback Church]], also endorsed the measure.<ref>{{cite web | last = Warren | first = Rick | title = Pastor Rick's News & Views | publisher = Saddleback Church | date = October 23, 2008 | url = http://www.saddlebackfamily.com/blogs/newsandviews/index.html?contentID=1502 | access-date = April 19, 2009 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20081027085038/http://saddlebackfamily.com/blogs/newsandviews/index.html?contentid=1502 | archive-date = October 27, 2008 | df = mdy-all }}</ref>

====Others====
The [[Grossmont Union High School District]] in [[San Diego County]], California, publicly voted on a resolution endorsing Proposition 8. The Governing Board voted 4–0 to endorse the amendment of the California State Constitution.<ref>{{cite news|title=Resolution for the Endorsement of Proposition 8—The California Marriage Protection Act |date=July 31, 2008 |publisher=Grossmont Union High School District |url=http://portal.guhsd.net/portal/page/portal/GUHSD_SUPER/BOARD/BOARD_DOCS/Resolutions/Support%20of%20Prop%208.pdf |access-date=October 13, 2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081029064047/http://portal.guhsd.net/portal/page/portal/GUHSD_SUPER/BOARD/BOARD_DOCS/Resolutions/Support%20of%20Prop%208.pdf |archive-date=October 29, 2008 }}</ref>

The Asian Heritage Coalition held a rally in support of Proposition 8 in downtown San Diego on October 19, 2008.<ref>{{cite news | first=Craig | last=Gustafson | title=Asian group rallies for traditional marriage | date=October 19, 2008 | publisher=Union Tribune | url=http://weblog.signonsandiego.com/news/breaking/2008/10/asian_group_rally_for_traditio.html | access-date=October 19, 2008 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090221003359/http://weblog.signonsandiego.com/news/breaking/2008/10/asian_group_rally_for_traditio.html | archive-date=February 21, 2009 }}</ref>

During the November 2008 election campaign, [[Porterville, California|Porterville]]'s City Council was the only City Council in California that passed a Resolution in favor of Proposition 8.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://abc30.com/archive/6844975/|title=Prop 8 debate underway in Porterville|last=Haagenson|first=Gene|year=2009|work=KFSN-TV News|publisher=abc30.com|access-date=November 9, 2009|location=Fresno|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110604020150/http://abclocal.go.com/kfsn/story?section=news%2Flocal&id=6844975|archive-date=June 4, 2011}}</ref>

==== Church of Scientology ====
The [[San Diego]] branch of the [[Church of Scientology]] publicly supported the proposition by signing an [[online petition]] asking for Prop 8. This led to award-winning director, producer and writer [[Paul Haggis]] to call on [[Tommy Davis (Scientology)|Tommy Davis]] to denounce the signature.<ref name=":0" />

Davis responded to Haggis and told him that it was a single member of the San Diego branch which had signed the petition using the branch name and not a branch decision. Davis then stated that the man had been "handled."<ref name=":0">{{Cite magazine |date=2011-02-07 |title=Paul Haggis vs. the Church of Scientology |url=https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2011/02/14/the-apostate-lawrence-wright |access-date=2022-12-29 |magazine=The New Yorker |language=en-US}}</ref>

Haggis spent ten months trying to get Scientology to publicly denounce Prop 8, but Scientology remained silent and later said "Davis explained to Haggis that the church avoids taking overt political stands."<ref>{{Cite web |last=Ortega |first=Tony |date=2011-02-15 |title=Scientology and Proposition 8: Debunking the Church Myth That It Stays Out of Politics |url=https://www.villagevoice.com/2011/02/15/scientology-and-proposition-8-debunking-the-church-myth-that-it-stays-out-of-politics/ |access-date=2022-12-29 |website=The Village Voice}}</ref> going further to explain that because they are a non-profit with tax exempt status, they cannot take a political stance or risk losing that status.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Spokesman: Scientologists aren't anti-gay |url=https://www.today.com/popculture/spokesman-scientologists-aren-t-anti-gay-wbna33498755 |access-date=2022-12-29 |website=TODAY.com |date=28 October 2009 |language=en}}</ref>

Haggis resigned from Scientology after thirty-five years of membership and wrote in his resignation letter that "public sponsorship of Proposition 8, which succeeded in taking away the civil rights of gay and lesbian citizens of California—rights that were granted them by the Supreme Court of our state—is a stain on the integrity of our organization and a stain on us personally. Our public association with that hate-filled legislation shames us."<ref name=":0" /><ref>{{Cite web |date=2009-10-26 |title=Film-maker Paul Haggis quits Scientology over gay rights stance |url=http://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/oct/26/paul-haggis-scientology-prop-8 |access-date=2022-12-29 |website=The Guardian |language=en}}</ref>

===="Whether You Like It or Not" advertisement====
In the months leading up to [[Election Day (politics)|Election Day]], Proposition 8 supporters released a commercial featuring San Francisco [[Mayor of San Francisco|Mayor]] [[Gavin Newsom]] stating in a speech regarding same-sex marriage: "This door's wide open now. It's going to happen, whether you like it or not."<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/05/MN1B13S3D3.DTL |title=Newsom was central to same-sex marriage saga |work=San Francisco Chronicle |date=November 6, 2008 |access-date=October 31, 2011 |first=Erin |last=Allday}}</ref> Some observers noted that polls shifted in favor of Proposition 8 following the release of the commercial; this, in turn, led to much speculation about Newsom's unwitting role in the passage of the amendment.<ref>[http://www.sacbee.com/295/story/1470639.html Newsom seeks to get beyond Prop. 8 fiasco in quest to become governor] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090211015140/http://www.sacbee.com/295/story/1470639.html |date=February 11, 2009 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=29277 |title='Historic' campaign scored Prop 8's win in California |publisher=Bpnews.net |date=November 6, 2008 |access-date=October 31, 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110615025244/http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=29277 |archive-date=June 15, 2011 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.newsweek.com/id/180047 |title=Hoping That Left Is Right|author=Darman, Johnatha|work=Newsweek|date=January 17, 2009|access-date=June 18, 2009}}</ref>

===Opponents===
[[File:NoOnProp8 logo.png|thumb|Official "Vote NO on Prop 8" logo]]
Opponents argued that "the freedom to marry is fundamental to our society", that the California constitution "should guarantee the same freedom and rights to everyone", and that the proposition "mandates one set of rules for gay and lesbian couples and another set for everyone else". They also argued that "equality under the law is a fundamental constitutional guarantee" (see [[Equal Protection Clause]]).<ref name="voterguide.sos.ca.gov" />

Equality for All was 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 |access-date=July 31, 2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100223031550/http://www.equalityforall.com/home |archive-date=February 23, 2010 }}</ref> They also ran the NoOnProp8.com campaign.<ref name="noonprop8">{{cite web|url=http://www.noonprop8.com/home |title=Vote No On Prop 8 |access-date=September 21, 2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080920024810/http://www.noonprop8.com/home |archive-date=September 20, 2008 }}</ref> As with the measure's proponents, opponents of the measure also included a number of political figures and religious organizations. Some non-partisan organizations and corporations, as well as the editorial boards of many of the state's major newspapers, also opposed the measure.

====Political figures====
[[File:Gavin Newsom IMG 1974 (2910272193).jpg|thumb|[[San Francisco Mayor]] [[Gavin Newsom]] speaks at an Anti-Proposition 8 Rally on the [[Sproul Plaza]] steps at [[UC Berkeley]]]]

Democratic [[presidential nominee]] and U.S. Senator [[Barack Obama]] stated that while he personally considered marriage to be between a man and woman,<ref>{{cite news |last=Obama |first=Barack |title=Obama Statement on Vote Against Constitutional Amendment to Ban Gay Marriage |url=http://obama.senate.gov/press/060607-obama_statement_26/index.php |work=Senate |date=June 7, 2006 |access-date=October 13, 2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081208020010/http://obama.senate.gov/press/060607-obama_statement_26/index.php |archive-date=December 8, 2008 }}</ref> and supported [[civil union]]s that confer comparable rights rather than gay marriage,<ref name="CNNvideo">{{cite news|url=http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2008/01/25/sot.obama.gay.marriage.wls|title=Obama on same sex marriage|date=January 25, 2008|work=CNN|access-date=October 13, 2008}}</ref> he opposed "divisive and discriminatory efforts to amend the California Constitution... the U.S. Constitution or those of other states".<ref name="rojas">{{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=July 1, 2008| access-date=August 13, 2008 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20080731210556/http://www.sacbee.com/111/story/1051404.html <!-- Bot retrieved archive --> |archive-date = July 31, 2008}}</ref> Democratic [[Vice president|vice-presidential]] candidate [[Joseph Biden]] also opposed the proposition.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/10/20/entertainment/e174934D50.DTL&type=politics |title=Biden says he'd oppose Calif. gay marriage ban |work=San Francisco Chronicle |date=October 20, 2008 |access-date=October 21, 2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081022235852/http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=%2Fn%2Fa%2F2008%2F10%2F20%2Fentertainment%2Fe174934D50.DTL&type=politics |archive-date=October 22, 2008 }}</ref> [[Republican Party (United States)|Republican]] [[Governor of California|California Governor]] [[Arnold Schwarzenegger]] stated that although he opposed and twice [[veto#U.S. states and amendatory veto|vetoed]] legislative bills that would recognize [[same-sex marriage in California]], he respected and would uphold the court's ruling and oppose the initiative and other attempts to amend the state's constitution.<ref>{{cite news |title=Schwarzenegger: No to Marriage Amendment |author=Allison Hoffman |agency=Associated Press |date=April 12, 2008 |url=http://www.christianpost.com/article/20080412/31920_Schwarzenegger:_No_to_Marriage_Amendment_.htm |archive-url=https://archive.today/20080420040029/http://www.christianpost.com/article/20080412/31920_Schwarzenegger:_No_to_Marriage_Amendment_.htm |archive-date=April 20, 2008 }}</ref><ref>{{cite press release |url= http://www.gov.ca.gov/press-release/9610/ |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20080517150436/http://gov.ca.gov/press-release/9610/ |archive-date= May 17, 2008 |title= Gov. Schwarzenegger Issues Statement on Today's State Supreme Court Ruling |date= May 15, 2008 |publisher= Office of the Governor of California }}</ref> The [[United States Speaker of the House|U.S. House Speaker]], 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=May 15, 2008 |url=http://www.house.gov/pelosi/press/releases/May08/marriage.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080802174815/http://www.house.gov/pelosi/press/releases/May08/marriage.html |archive-date=August 2, 2008 }}</ref> along with other members of the California congressional delegation and both of California's U.S. senators, [[Dianne Feinstein]] and [[Barbara Boxer]], 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=September 11, 2008}}</ref> Also voicing their opposition were the [[Lieutenant governor|Lieutenant Governor]], State Controller [[John Chiang (California politician)|John Chiang]], former governor and [[California Attorney General|Attorney General]] [[Jerry Brown]], 42 of 80 members of the [[Legislative Assembly|state assembly]], half of the state senators, and the mayors of San Francisco, Los Angeles, and San Diego: [[Gavin Newsom]], [[Antonio Villaraigosa]], and [[Jerry Sanders (politician)|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=September 11, 2008|work=[[Bay Area Reporter]]|access-date=September 17, 2008}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPh0PQ89n6Y|title=Gavin Newsom Speaks on Prop 8|work=YouTube|access-date=September 17, 2008}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rfea8iEGNw|title=San Diego Mayor Stands Up For Marriage Equality|work=YouTube|access-date=October 2, 2008}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://digital.library.ucla.edu/websites/2008_993_109/about/who-opposes-prop-8/index.htm|title=Who Opposes Prop 8?|publisher=No On 8, Equality for All|access-date=August 1, 2013|archive-date=January 24, 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160124004127/http://digital.library.ucla.edu/websites/2008_993_109/about/who-opposes-prop-8/index.htm}}</ref>

====Religious organizations====
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=https://www.latimes.com/news/local/politics/cal/la-me-gaymarriage11-2008sep11,0,7646017.story|work=Los Angeles Times|date=September 11, 2008 | first=Duke | last=Helfand}}</ref> Southern California's largest collection of rabbis, the Board of Rabbis of Southern California, voted to oppose Proposition 8.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-briefs27-2008sep27,0,1387683.story |title=Southern California rabbi board opposes gay marriage ban |work=Los Angeles Times |date=September 27, 2008 |access-date=March 12, 2021}}</ref> Other Jewish groups who opposed Proposition 8 include [[Jewish Mosaic]],<ref>{{cite web|last=Drinkwater |first=Gregg |title=Speaking out for love, justice and the freedom to marry |publisher=Jewish Mosaic |date=October 20, 2008 |url=http://www.jewishmosaic.org/page/load_page/142 |access-date=October 25, 2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090214094932/http://www.jewishmosaic.org/page/load_page/142 |archive-date=February 14, 2009 }}</ref> the [[American Jewish Committee]], [[Progressive Jewish Alliance]], [[National Council of Jewish Women]], and the [[Anti-Defamation League]] (ADL).<ref name="orthodox" /> The ADL filed [[amicus brief]]s urging the [[Supreme Court of California]], [[Ninth Circuit]], and the [[Supreme Court of the United States|Supreme Court]] to invalidate Prop 8.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://38.106.4.56/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentID=1228|title=Brief Of Amici Curiae Anti-Defamation League Et Al. In Support Of Respondents|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130307154233/http://38.106.4.56/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentID=1228|archive-date=2013-03-07|access-date=2013-11-01}}</ref> Los Angeles Jews were more opposed to Prop 8 than any other [[Religious denomination|religious group]] or [[ethnic group]] in the city. Seventy-eight percent of surveyed Jewish Angelenos voted against the measure while only 8% supported the measure; the remainder declined to respond.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://jta.org/news/article/2008/11/09/1000851/most-la-jews-voted-against-same-sex-ban|title=Most L.A. Jews voted against same-sex ban|work=[[Jewish Telegraphic Agency]]|date=November 9, 2008|archive-url=https://archive.today/20120711002524/http://jta.org/news/article/2008/11/09/1000851/most-la-jews-voted-against-same-sex-ban|archive-date=July 11, 2012}}</ref> The legislative ministry of the [[Unitarian Universalists]] opposed Proposition 8, and organized phone banks toward defeating the measure.<ref>{{cite web
| last = Deakin
| first = Michelle Bates
| title = Unitarian Universalists work to preserve gay marriage in Calif.
| publisher = UUWorld
| date = October 20, 2008
| url = http://www.uuworld.org/news/articles/121067.shtml
| access-date = December 24, 2008 }}</ref> They saw opposition to the proposition as a civil rights and social justice issue and their actions against it as a continuation of their previous works in civil rights.

In addition, the California Council of Churches urged the "immediate removal of Proposition 8"—saying that it infringes on the [[freedom of religion]] for churches who wish to bless same-sex unions.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.nclrights.org/site/DocServer/CACouncilofChurchesPR.pdf |title=CA Council of Churches Condemn Court Decision |publisher=CA Council of Churches |date=May 26, 2009 |access-date=August 1, 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120112100233/http://www.nclrights.org/site/DocServer/CACouncilofChurchesPR.pdf |archive-date=January 12, 2012 }}</ref>

====Others====
The [[League of Women Voters]] of California opposed Proposition 8 because "no person or group should suffer legal, economic or administrative discrimination".<ref>{{cite web |url=http://ca.lwv.org/action/prop0811/prop8.html |title=Vote No on Proposition 8 |publisher=[[League of Women Voters]] of California |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081012073424/http://ca.lwv.org/action/prop0811/prop8.html |archive-date=2008-10-12 }}</ref> Additionally, all but two of the [[National Association for the Advancement of Colored People]]'s local chapters in California and NAACP national chairman [[Julian Bond]] and President [[Benjamin Jealous]] opposed Proposition 8.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/07/16/MNI318P67K.DTL|title=NAACP weighs support of gays who want to marry|work=San Francisco Chronicle|author=Garofoli, Joe|date=June 16, 2009|access-date=June 17, 2009}}</ref> [[Amnesty International]] also condemned Proposition 8, saying that "states should never withhold rights based on minority status".<ref>{{cite web|url=http://news.prnewswire.com/DisplayReleaseContent.aspx?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/03-03-2009/0004982118&EDATE=|title=Amnesty International Urges California Supreme Court to Overturn Prop 8 and Restore Marriage Equality|publisher=Newswire|access-date=March 4, 2009|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090522040604/http://news.prnewswire.com/DisplayReleaseContent.aspx?ACCT=104|archive-date=May 22, 2009}}</ref>

A coalition of [[Silicon Valley]] executives urged a 'No' vote on Proposition 8.<ref>{{cite web|title=Silicon Valley Stands United Against Prop. 8|url=https://techcrunch.com/2008/10/30/silicon-valley-stands-united-against-prop-8/|work=TechCrunch|access-date=October 31, 2008|date=October 30, 2008}}</ref> [[Google]] officially opposed Proposition 8 "as an issue of equality", and its founders donated $140,000 to the No on 8 campaign.<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=September 26, 2008|access-date=September 29, 2008}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=Google, Apple Openly Support Fight Against 'Proposition 8'|url=http://www.osnews.com/story/20432/Google_Apple_Openly_Support_Fight_Against_Proposition_8_/|date=October 25, 2008|access-date=July 11, 2013}}</ref><ref name="Apple opposes anti-gay marriage ban">{{cite web|title=Apple to oppose anti-gay marriage ballot question|url=http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-10074793-37.html|date=October 24, 2008|access-date=October 24, 2008|archive-date=March 10, 2012|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120310201429/http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-10074793-37.html}}</ref> [[Apple Inc.]] also opposed Proposition 8 as a "fundamental" [[civil rights]] issue, and donated $100,000 to the No on 8 campaign.<ref name="Apple opposes anti-gay marriage ban" /><ref>{{cite news
| last = Quinn
| first = Michelle
| title = Apple donates $100,000 to fight same-sex marriage ban
|work=Los Angeles Times
| date = October 24, 2008
| url = http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2008/10/apple-against-t.html?cid=136241195
}}
</ref> Biotech leaders warned of potential damage to the state's $73 billion industry, citing Massachusetts as a top competitor for employees.<ref>{{cite news|title=Proposition 8 would blunt biotech edge, execs say|url=http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/business/20081029-9999-1b29prop8.html|newspaper=San Diego Union-Tribune|first=Terri|last=Somers|date=October 29, 2008|access-date=October 29, 2008|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081101100502/http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/business/20081029-9999-1b29prop8.html|archive-date=November 1, 2008}}</ref>

Many members of the entertainment industry were opposed to Proposition 8.<ref>{{cite news|title=Hollywood comes out in support of gay marriage |first=Derrik |last=Lang |url=http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iiQ9C0VDMLFaIonfk5s-p2cz2pfQD93VSANO0 |date=October 22, 2008 |access-date=October 27, 2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081027085626/http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iiQ9C0VDMLFaIonfk5s-p2cz2pfQD93VSANO0 |archive-date=October 27, 2008 }}</ref> Actor [[Tom Hanks]], a strong supporter of [[same-sex marriage]], was extremely outspoken about his opposition to the bill. [[Brad Pitt]] and [[Steven Spielberg]] each donated different amounts of money to the opposition campaign "No on 8".<ref>{{cite web|url=http://uk.eonline.com/uberblog/b30446_Spielberg_Makes_Like_Pitt__Supports_Same_Sex_Marriage.html |title=Spielberg Makes Like Pitt, Supports Same-Sex Marriage—E! Online |publisher=Uk.eonline.com |date=September 23, 2008 |access-date=October 31, 2011}}</ref> In 2010, the documentary film ''[[8: The Mormon Proposition]]'' premiered to sell-out audiences at the [[Sundance Film Festival]].

The [[Los Angeles Unified School District]] [[Board of education|Board of Education]] voted unanimously for a resolution to oppose Proposition 8.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://blogs.laweekly.com/ladaily/queer-town/queer-town-1/ |title=LA Unified Opposes Prop. 8 |work=[[LA Weekly]] |date=September 10, 2008 |access-date=October 13, 2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080924184022/http://blogs.laweekly.com/ladaily/queer-town/queer-town-1/ |archive-date=September 24, 2008 }}</ref> The [[California Teachers Association]] donated one million dollars to fight Proposition 8.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-teachers17-2008oct17,0,6308701.story |title=Teachers Union Donates $1 Million to Oppose Proposition 8|newspaper=Los Angeles Times|date=October 17, 2008|access-date=October 17, 2008 | first=Evelyn | last=Larrubia}}</ref> Chancellor [[Robert Birgeneau]] of [[UC Berkeley]] urged a vote against the measure, claiming a likely threat to California's academic competitiveness if Proposition 8 is passed.<ref>{{cite web|title=Chancellor Birgeneau informs campus of likely impacts of Proposition 8|url=http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2008/10/22_propeight.shtml|date=October 22, 2008|access-date=October 29, 2008}}</ref>

====Newspaper editorials====
All ten of the state's largest newspapers editorialized against Proposition 8, including the ''[[Los Angeles Times]]'',<ref>{{cite news|title=Reneging on a right|url=https://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-marriage8-2008aug08%2C0%2C1229155.story|work=Los Angeles Times|date=August 8, 2008|access-date=September 29, 2008}}</ref> and the ''[[San Francisco Chronicle]]''.<ref>{{cite news|title=Californians should reject Proposition 8|url=http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/01/ED7T1390OF.DTL&hw=Proposition+section%3Ded+in&sn=022&sc=554|work=San Francisco Chronicle|date=October 1, 2008|access-date=October 2, 2008}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=Gay marriage right should not be repealed|url=http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20080918/news_lz1ed18top.html|work=San Diego Union-Tribune|date=September 18, 2008|access-date=September 29, 2008|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080921013652/http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20080918/news_lz1ed18top.html|archive-date=September 21, 2008}}</ref><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|work=The Orange County Register|date=October 1, 2008|access-date=October 2, 2008|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081007165353/http://www.ocregister.com/articles/marriage-sex-protection-2174926-california-state|archive-date=October 7, 2008}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.sacbee.com/110/story/1299709-p3.html |title=Endorsements '08: Say 'No' to all propositions except 11 |date=October 9, 2008 |access-date=October 9, 2008 |work=Sacramento Bee |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081014203411/http://www.sacbee.com/110/story/1299709-p3.html |archive-date=October 14, 2008 }}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_10229683|work=San Jose Mercury News |title=Editorial: Initiative against gay marriage must be defeated|date=August 17, 2008|access-date=September 29, 2008}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.contracostatimes.com/opinion/ci_10755791|title=Times recommendations on California propositions|work=Contra Costa Times|date=October 19, 2008|access-date=October 20, 2008}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.pe.com/elections/2008/oped/editorials/stories/PE_OpEd_Opinion_S_op_28_ed_prop8_1_elx.97ff31.html |archive-url=https://archive.today/20120910073951/http://www.pe.com/elections/2008/oped/editorials/stories/PE_OpEd_Opinion_S_op_28_ed_prop8_1_elx.97ff31.html |archive-date=September 10, 2012 |title=No on 8 |date=September 27, 2008 |access-date=October 20, 2008 |work=The Press-Enterprise }}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.fresnobee.com/opinion/story/950392.html |title=No on Prop. 8 |work=The Fresno Bee |date=October 21, 2008 |access-date=October 21, 2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081024094045/http://www.fresnobee.com/opinion/story/950392.html |archive-date=October 24, 2008 }}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.dailynews.com/editorial/ci_10720727|title=No on Prop. 8|work=Daily News|date=October 20, 2008|access-date=October 21, 2008|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081017192316/http://www.dailynews.com/editorial/ci_10720727|archive-date=October 17, 2008|df=mdy-all}}</ref> Other papers to have editorialized in opposition include
''[[The New York Times]]'',<ref>{{cite news|title=Preserving California's Constitution|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/29/opinion/29mon3.html|work=The New York Times|date=September 28, 2008|access-date=September 29, 2008}}</ref> ''[[La Opinión]]'' (Los Angeles),<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.impre.com/laopinion/opinion/editorial/2008/10/9/una-propuesta-innecesaria-86131-1.html|title=Una propuesta innecesaria|work=La Opinión|language=es|date=October 9, 2008|access-date=October 21, 2008|archive-date=October 23, 2008|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081023030212/http://www.impre.com/laopinion/opinion/editorial/2008/10/9/una-propuesta-innecesaria-86131-1.html}}</ref> and ''[[The Bakersfield Californian]]''.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.bakersfield.com/opinion/editorials/story/581251.html |title=Vote no on Proposition 8 |work=The Bakersfield Californian |date=October 15, 2008 |access-date=October 28, 2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081017165726/http://www.bakersfield.com/opinion/editorials/story/581251.html |archive-date=October 17, 2008 }}</ref>

===Actions against supporters and opponents===
{{See also|Protests against Proposition 8 supporters|November 15, 2008 anti-Proposition 8 protests}}

After the election, a number of protests were held against the referendum's passing. These included [[candlelight vigil]]s outside organizations such as LDS churches that promoted the proposition.<ref>{{cite news |title= Anti-Prop 8 demonstrators protest near Mormon temple |first= Sean |last= Maher |newspaper= Oakland Tribune |url= http://www.insidebayarea.com/ci_10943059 |access-date= December 24, 2008 |date= November 10, 2008 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title= LDS moms hold vigil against Prop. 8 |first= Budy |last= Blankenfeld |publisher= ABC4 |url= http://www.abc4.com/content/news/top%20stories/story/LDS-moms-hold-vigil-against-Prop-8/E81cQC526UaEWdX1G9N40A.cspx |access-date= December 24, 2008 |date= November 2, 2008 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20110617012731/http://www.abc4.com/content/news/top%20stories/story/LDS-moms-hold-vigil-against-Prop-8/E81cQC526UaEWdX1G9N40A.cspx |archive-date= 2011-06-17 }}</ref> Rallies against the amendment took place in California and across the country, with participants numbering in thousands.<ref name="NYTPROP8">{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/16/us/16protest.html|title=Across U.S., Big Rallies for Same-Sex Marriage|first=Jesse|last=McKinley|date=15 November 2008|via=NYTimes.com|newspaper=The New York Times}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=http://wbztv.com/local/gay.marriage.protest.2.865418.html |title=wbztv.com: 4,000 In Boston Protest Calif. Gay Marriage Ban |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100228165230/http://wbztv.com/local/gay.marriage.protest.2.865418.html |archive-date=February 28, 2010 }}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/111608dnmetprop8protest.1b72a49ee.html |title=dallasnews.com: 1,200 protest California's gay-marriage ban at Dallas City Hall |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090824203517/http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/111608dnmetprop8protest.1b72a49ee.html |archive-date=August 24, 2009 }}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/orange/orl-gayprotest1508nov15,0,4193502.story |archive-url=https://archive.today/20110810201828/http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/orange/orl-gayprotest1508nov15,0,4193502.story |archive-date=2011-08-10 |title=Orland Sentinel: 'National Day of Protest' of gay-marriage bans includes Orlando, 85 other cities }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|last=Gammage |first=Jeff |title=Gay-rights rally in Phila. part of nationwide protest|url=https://www.inquirer.com/philly/news/local/20081116_Gay-rights_rally_in_Phila__part_of_nationwide_protest.html|access-date=2021-01-16|website=www.inquirer.com|date=16 November 2008 |language=en-US}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/15/BAIA145AQ9.DTL |title=San Francisco Chronicle: Bay Area demonstrations condemn Prop. 8 |work=The San Francisco Chronicle |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120127161426/http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=%2Fc%2Fa%2F2008%2F11%2F15%2FBAIA145AQ9.DTL |archive-date=January 27, 2012 }}</ref>

[[Boycott]]s were also a feature of public response to the outcome of the election. LGBTQ rights groups published lists of donors to the Yes on 8 campaign and organized boycotts of individuals or organizations who had promoted or donated to it.<ref name="protests-boycotts">{{cite news |title= Protests, boycotts erupt in the wake of Prop. 8's passage |first= Mary Anne |last= Ostrom |newspaper= [[The Mercury News]] |url= http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_10978482 |date= November 13, 2008 }}</ref><ref name="liberal-hollywood">{{cite news |title= Liberal Hollywood ponders next step in fight for same-sex marriage |first= Rachel |last= Abramowitz |work=Los Angeles Times |url= https://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-et-shunned23-2008nov23,0,5732864.story |date= November 23, 2008 }}</ref><ref name="target-sundance">{{cite magazine |title= Same-Sex Activists Target Sundance |first= Robert |last= Hofler |magazine= Variety |url= https://www.variety.com/index.asp?layout=festivals&jump=story&id=2470&articleid=VR1117996044&cs=1 |date= November 17, 2008 }}</ref> Targets of the boycotts included the [[Sundance Film Festival]] in Utah, [[El Coyote Cafe]], [[California Musical Theatre]], and the [[Manchester Grand Hyatt Hotel]].<ref name="target-sundance" /><ref>{{cite news |url= https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB123033766467736451 |work= The Wall Street Journal |first= Jim |last= Carlton |title= Gay Activists Boycott Backers of Prop 8 |date= December 27, 2008 }}</ref><ref name="manchester">{{cite news |last= Ainsworth |first= Bill |title= Gay rights groups to boycott Manchester Grand Hyatt |newspaper= San Diego Union Tribune |date= July 10, 2008 |url= http://weblog.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20080710-9999-1m10boycott.html |access-date= June 16, 2009 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20090324033153/http://weblog.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20080710-9999-1m10boycott.html |archive-date= March 24, 2009 }}</ref>

Some supporters of Proposition 8 reported receiving [[death threat]]s, some of which claimed to be "stemming from Prop 8".<ref name="KFSN1">[https://abc30.com/archive/6479879/ "Prop 8 Threat: Fresno Police close to Arrest"], by Andres Araiza, KFSN-TV30/Fresno, October 31, 2008</ref><ref name="KFSN2">[https://abc30.com/archive/6479861/ "Prop 8 Death Threats"], by Amanda Perez, KFSN-TV30/Fresno, October 31, 2008</ref> Some LDS churches were vandalized with [[spray painting|spray paint]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.news10.net/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=50266|title=Prop 8 Protesting Turns Ugly|date=November 10, 2008|access-date=April 4, 2009|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110608063501/http://www.news10.net/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=50266|archive-date=2011-06-08}}</ref><ref name="Bash Back">{{cite news|title=Radical Gay Activist Group Plans More Disruptions |work=Chicago Tribune |url=http://archives.chicagotribune.com/2008/nov/20/news/chi-ap-mi-gayactivistprotes |date=November 20, 2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091116125804/http://archives.chicagotribune.com/2008/nov/20/news/chi-ap-mi-gayactivistprotes |archive-date=November 16, 2009 }}</ref>

Fresno-area supporters of gay marriage were also harassed; "No On 8" signs at the Clovis [[Unitarian Universalism|Unitarian Universalist Church]] were torn up, with Reverend Bryan Jessup alleging that his church experienced [[vandalism]] "every night".<ref name="KFSN1" /> [[Santa Clara County, California|Santa Clara County]] Deputy [[District attorney|District Attorney]] (DDA) Jay Boyarsky attributed a surge in [[Violence against LGBT people|anti-gay hate crimes]], from 3 in 2007 to 14 in 2008, to controversy over Proposition 8.<ref name="hcspike">{{cite news|url=http://docs.newsbank.com/openurl?ctx_ver=z39.88-2004&rft_id=info:sid/iw.newsbank.com:AWNB:SJMB&rft_val_format=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rft_dat=126FC8991C109DB8&svc_dat=InfoWeb:aggregated5&req_dat=0FB3382EE6AD1E46|title=Surge in anti-gay hate crime cases|newspaper=San Jose Mercury News|date=March 16, 2009|access-date=March 16, 2009|first1=Tracey|last1=Kaplan}}</ref>

==Pre-decision opinion polls==
Various opinion polls were conducted to estimate the outcome of the proposition. Those margins with differences less than their margins of error are marked as "n.s.", meaning not significant (see [[statistical significance]]). Those margins considered statistically significant are indicated with the percentage points and the side favored in the poll, as either "pro" for in favor of the proposition's passage (e.g., 1% pro), or "con" for against its passage (e.g., 1% con).

According to the director of the Field Poll, the discrepancy between the pre-election polls and ballot results is because "regular church-goers&nbsp;... were more prone than other voters to be influenced by last-minute appeals to conform to orthodox church positions when voting on a [[Social progressivism|progressive social]] issue like same-sex marriage."<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/10/EDGQ140F5R.DTL |title=Why Prop. 8 confounded pre-election pollsters |work=San Francisco Chronicle |date=November 10, 2008 |access-date=November 12, 2008 | first=Mark | last=DiCamillo}}</ref>

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Date of opinion poll
!Conducted by
![[Sample size]]<br />(likely voters)
!In favor
!Against
!Undecided
!Margin
!Margin of Error
|-
| style="background:#f0f0f0;" | October 29–31, 2008<ref>{{cite web
|url=http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=1c4ececc-7c3c-490c-8f35-13341be85e1e
|title=Proposition 8, on Marriage, Still in Doubt
|publisher=SurveyUSA
|date=November 1, 2008
|access-date=November 2, 2008
}}</ref>|| [[SurveyUSA]] || 637 || 47% || {{No|''50%''|align=left}} || 3% || [[Statistical significance|n.s.]] || ±4%
|-
| style="background:#f0f0f0;" | October 18–28, 2008<ref>{{cite news
|url=http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/30/BA8C13RHTU.DTL&tsp=1
|title=Prop. 8 still trails, but margin narrows
|publisher=[[The Field Poll]]
|date=October 22, 2008
|access-date=October 23, 2008
| first=John
| last=Wildermuth
}}</ref>|| The Field Poll || 966 || 44% || {{No|''49%''|align=left}} || 7% || 5% con || ±3.3%
|-
| style="background:#f0f0f0;" | October 12–19, 2008<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.ppic.org/publication/ppic-statewide-survey-californians-and-their-government-october-2008/ |title=Californians & Their Government&nbsp;— PPIC Survey |publisher=[[Public Policy Institute of California]] |date=October 22, 2008 |access-date=October 23, 2008 }}</ref>|| [[Public Policy Institute of California]] || 1,186 || 44% || {{No|'''52%'''|align=left}} || 4% || 8% con || ±3%
|-
| style="background:#f0f0f0;" | October 15–16, 2008<ref>{{cite web
|url=http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=0d4fd538-5834-4c18-98c8-6e58da254976
|title=California Prop 8 Remains a Fierce Fight That Could Be Decided Either Way By Handful of Votes
|publisher=SurveyUSA
|date=October 17, 2008
|access-date=October 17, 2008
}}</ref>|| [[SurveyUSA]] || 615 || {{Yes|''48%''|align=left}} || 45% || 7% || [[Statistical significance|n.s.]] || ±4%
|-
| style="background:#f0f0f0;" | October 4–5, 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=October 6, 2008 |access-date=October 7, 2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081007165744/http://cbs5.com/politics/proposition.8.poll.2.834082.html |archive-date=October 7, 2008 }}</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=October 6, 2008
|access-date=October 7, 2008
}}</ref>|| SurveyUSA || 670 || {{Yes|''47%''|align=left}} || 42% || 10% || 5% pro || ±3.9%
|-
| style="background:#f0f0f0;" | September 23–24, 2008<ref>{{cite news
|url=https://abc30.com/archive/6413879/
|title=Action News poll
|work=[[ABC 30 local]]
|date=September 26, 2008
|access-date=September 26, 2008
|url-status=live
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110604054707/http://abclocal.go.com/kfsn/story?section=news%2Fpolitics&id=6413879
|archive-date=June 4, 2011
}}</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=September 25, 2008
|access-date=September 26, 2008
}}</ref>|| SurveyUSA || 661 || 44% || {{No|''49%''|align=left}} || 8% || 5% con || ±3.9%
|-
| style="background:#f0f0f0;" | September 9–16, 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=September 25, 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% || {{No|'''55%'''|align=left}} || 4% || 14% con ||±3%
|-
| style="background:#f0f0f0;" | September 5–14, 2008<ref name="sfgate_fieldsep">{{cite news
|url=http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/09/18/BATM12VSRA.DTL&hw=Proposition+field+poll&sn=005&sc=072
|title=Opposition to same-sex marriage ban grows
|work=San Francisco Chronicle
|date=September 18, 2008
|access-date=October 23, 2008
| first=Carrie
| last=Sturrock
}}</ref>|| The Field Poll || 830 || 38% || {{No|'''55%'''|align=left}} || 7% || 17% con ||±3.5%
|-
| style="background:#f0f0f0;" | August 12–19, 2008<ref name="ppic">{{cite news
|url=https://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=August 27, 2008
|access-date=August 30, 2008
| first=Jessica
| last=Garrison
}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.ppic.org/publication/ppic-statewide-survey-californians-and-their-government-January-2008/ |title=Californians & their government |newspaper=Public Policy Institute of California |date=August 27, 2008 |access-date=March 12, 2021}}</ref>|| Public Policy Institute of California || 1,047 || 40% || {{No|'''54%'''|align=left}} || 6% || 14% con || ±3%
|-
| style="background:#f0f0f0;" | July 8–14, 2008<ref name="wsj" /><ref>{{cite web|url=http://field.com/fieldpollonline/subscribers/Rls2278.pdf|title=Release #2278|publisher=The Field Poll|date=July 18, 2008|access-date=October 22, 2008|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081029064046/http://field.com/fieldpollonline/subscribers/Rls2278.pdf|archive-date=October 29, 2008}}</ref>|| The Field Poll || 672 || 42% || {{No|'''51%'''|align=left}} || 7% || 9% con || ±3.9%
|-
| style="background:#f0f0f0;" | May 17–26, 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=May 28, 2008
|access-date=August 1, 2008
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080529122417/http://www.sacbee.com/111/story/970055.html|archive-date=May 29, 2008}}</ref>|| The Field Poll || 1,052 || 42% || {{No|'''51%'''|align=left}} || 7% || 9% con || ±3.2%
|-
| style="background:#f0f0f0;" | May 22, 2008<ref>{{cite news
|url=https://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=May 23, 2008
|access-date=August 1, 2008
| first=Cathleen
| last=Decker
}}</ref>|| ''[[Los Angeles Times]]''/[[KTLA]] || 705 || {{Yes|'''54%'''|align=left}} || 35% || 11% || 19% pro || ±4%
|}

==Results==
[[File:2008 California Proposition 8 results map by county.svg|330px|thumb|right|
{{Center|County Results}}
{{col-begin}}
{{col-2}}
'''For'''
{{legend|#47729E|70%–80% |border=1px #AAAAAA solid}}
{{legend|#7D9CBB|60%–70% |border=1px #AAAAAA solid}}
{{legend|#B6C8D9|50%–60% |border=1px #AAAAAA solid}}
{{col-2}}
'''Against'''
{{legend|#8B8B54|70%–80% |border=1px #AAAAAA solid}}
{{legend|#BCBC83|60%–70% |border=1px #AAAAAA solid}}
{{legend|#DEDEBD|50%–60% |border=1px #AAAAAA solid}}
{{col-end}}]]

{{Referendum
| title = Proposition 8<ref name='statementofvote'/>
| yes = 7,001,084
| yespct = 52.24
| no = 6,401,482
| nopct = 47.76
| valid = 13,402,566
| validpct = 97.52
| invalid = 340,611
| invalidpct = 2.48
| total = 13,743,177
| turnoutpct = 79.42
}}

{{Referendum bar
| title = Proposition 8

| text1       = Yes
| vote1       = 7,001,084
| background1 = #01387b
| textcolor1  = #fff

| text2       = No
| vote2       = 6,401,482
| background2 = #feda00
| textcolor2  = #000
}}

On the early morning hours of November 5, 2008, [[KGO-TV]] reported, with 92% of all precincts reporting, and ''[[The Associated Press]]'' (AP) reported, with 95% of all precincts reporting, that Proposition 8 had passed. According to the AP, with some provisional and absentee ballots were yet to be counted, but based on trends and the locations of outstanding votes, that Proposition 8's margin of support was secure.<ref>[https://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/06/world/americas/06iht-06ballot.17571248.html California voters ban gay marriage]</ref><ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20081108040158/https://www.sacbee.com/1089/story/1372821.html Same-sex marriage ban leads, opponents don't concede]</ref><ref>[https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna27576148 'The Rachel Maddow Show'for Wednesday, November 5, 2008]</ref><ref>[https://www.deseret.com/2008/11/5/20380483/prop-8-wins-legal-challenges-poised/ Prop. 8 wins; legal challenges poised]</ref><ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LK4zbiR90DE&ab_channel=DreamActivistdotOrg Prop 8 Passes in California - Bans Gay Marriage]</ref>

Amending the California Constitution by voter [[California ballot initiative|initiative]] requires a [[majority|simple majority]] to be enacted.<ref name="Constitution Article 18">{{cite web | url=http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_18 | title=Article 18 Amending and Revising the Constitution | access-date=November 26, 2008 | publisher=Legislative Counsel of California | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081210120948/http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_18 | archive-date=December 10, 2008 }}</ref>

Edison/Mitofsky conducted an [[exit poll]] on behalf of the [[National Election Pool]] which is the only source of data on voter demographics in California in the 2008 election.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://edition.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#val=CAI01p1|title=CNN 2008 Exit Polls, Page 1|access-date=November 13, 2008}}</ref><ref name="cnnpoll">{{cite news|url=http://edition.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#CAI01p2|title=CNN 2008 Exit Polls, Page 2|access-date=November 13, 2008}}</ref> The statistical trends from the exit poll of 2,240 voters suggested that an array of voters came out both in opposition to and in support of Proposition 8, with no single [[Demography|demographic group]] making up most of either the Yes or No vote. The National Election Pool poll showed that support for Proposition 8 was strong amongst African American voters, interviewed in the exit poll with 70% in favor, more than any other racial group.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.ktvu.com/news/news/exit-poll-shows-blacks-hispanics-overwhelmingly-ba/nKXyL/ |title=Exit Poll Shows Blacks, Hispanics Overwhelmingly Backed Prop. 8 |date=November 5, 2008 |publisher=[[KTVU]] |access-date=March 29, 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120917230950/http://www.ktvu.com/news/news/exit-poll-shows-blacks-hispanics-overwhelmingly-ba/nKXyL/ |archive-date=September 17, 2012 }}</ref> Their support was considered crucial to the proposition's passing, since African Americans made up an unusually larger percentage of voters that year, due to the presence of [[Barack Obama]] on the ballot.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-timelinegaymarriage-2008nov06,0,496938.story |title=Focused beyond marriage |work=[[Los Angeles Times]] |date=2008-11-06 |access-date=2013-11-01 |first1=Dan |last1=Morain |first2=Jessica |last2=Garrison}}</ref> Polls by both the [[Associated Press]] and [[CNN]] mirrored this data, reporting support among black voters to be at 70%<ref>{{cite news|url=http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2008/11/70-of-african-a.html |title=70% of African Americans backed Prop. 8, exit poll finds - latimes.com |publisher=Latimesblogs.latimes.com |date=2008-11-05 |access-date=2013-11-01}}</ref> and 75%,<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#val=CAI01p1 |title=Local Exit Polls—Election Center 2008—Elections & Politics from |publisher=CNN |access-date=2013-11-01}}</ref> respectively. A later study by the [[National Gay and Lesbian Task Force]] (NGLTF), examining the black vote only from five counties within the state, suggested that black support was closer to 58%.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.thetaskforce.org/downloads/issues/egan_sherrill_prop8_1_6_09.pdf|title=California's Prop 8|access-date=2009-12-22|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100107025954/http://www.thetaskforce.org/downloads/issues/egan_sherrill_prop8_1_6_09.pdf|archive-date=2010-01-07}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Black-support-for-Prop-8-called-exaggeration-3177138.php|title=Black support for Prop 8 called exaggeration | first=John | last=Wildermuth | date=January 7, 2009 | work=The San Francisco Chronicle}}</ref>

[[Hispanic and Latino Americans|Hispanic and Latino]] voters also voted for Proposition 8.<ref>{{cite news |author=Karl Vick |author2=Ashley Surdin |title=Most of California's Black Voters Backed Gay Marriage Ban |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/06/AR2008110603880.html |newspaper=[[The Washington Post]] |location=District of Columbia |date=7 November 2008 |access-date=11 April 2017 }}<br />{{cite news |author=Marcus Wohlsen |agency=Associated Press |title=Blacks, Latinos helped Prop. 8, exit polls say |url=http://legacy.sandiegouniontribune.com/uniontrib/20081106/news_1n6exit.html |work=San Diego Union-Tribune |location=San Diego |date=6 November 2008 |access-date=11 April 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170412143227/http://legacy.sandiegouniontribune.com/uniontrib/20081106/news_1n6exit.html |archive-date=12 April 2017 }}<br />{{cite web |url=http://politics.as.nyu.edu/docs/IO/4819/marriagedivides.pdf |title=California's Proposition 8 and America's Racial and Ethnic Divides on Same-Sex Marriage |author=Patrick J. Egan |author2=Kenneth Sherrill |date=January 2010 |website=The Wilf Family Department of Politics |publisher=New York University |access-date=11 April 2017 }}</ref>

Those who described themselves as religious were the strongest supporters of Prop 8.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.huffpost.com/entry/faith-not-race-the-big-fa_b_156780 |last=Ridley |first=John |title=Faith, Not Race, The Big Factor in Prop 8 Vote |date=February 9, 2009 |website=Huffpost |access-date=March 12, 2021}}</ref> According to the NGLTF study, self-identified [[Catholics]] and [[Protestants]] supported Prop 8 by measures of 55% and 66%, respectively,<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#val=CAI01p2 |title=Local Exit Polls—Election Center 2008—Elections & Politics from |publisher=CNN |access-date=2013-11-01}}</ref> while [[Jews]] overwhelmingly opposed it, with support at only 17%.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.thetaskforce.org/downloads/issues/egan_sherrill_prop8_1_6_09.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100107025954/http://www.thetaskforce.org/downloads/issues/egan_sherrill_prop8_1_6_09.pdf |archive-date=2010-01-07 |title=California's Proposition 8: What Happened, and What Does the Future Hold? |access-date=2013-11-01}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2008/11/la-jews-overwhe.html |title=L.A. Jews overwhelmingly opposed Prop. 8, exit poll finds - latimes.com |publisher=Latimesblogs.latimes.com |date=2008-11-09 |access-date=2013-11-01}}</ref> Young voters were more likely to have voted against the ballot measure than older voters, while Republicans were more likely to have supported the measure than were Democrats.<ref>[http://www.sacbee.com/elections/story/1372009.html Sacbee.com], California election exit poll data. Retrieved August 20, 2009 {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081108073642/http://www.sacbee.com/elections/story/1372009.html |date=November 8, 2008 }}</ref>

===County breakdown===
{| style="width:70%;" class="wikitable sortable collapsible collapsed"
|+Breakdown of voting by county<ref name="statementofvote">{{cite web |url=http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/sov/2008-general/sov_complete.pdf |title=Statement of Vote: 2008 General Election |publisher=[[California Secretary of State]] |date=December 13, 2008 |access-date=June 26, 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130506165548/http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/sov/2008-general/sov_complete.pdf |archive-date=May 6, 2013 }}</ref>
|- style="background:lightgrey;"
! style="width:21%;"| County
! style="width:10%;"| Yes
! style="width:10%;"| Votes
! style="width:10%;"| No
! style="width:10%;"| Votes
|-
| style="text-align:center; background:#c8ffc8;"|[[Kern County, California|Kern]]
| style="text-align:center;"|'''75.3%'''
| style="text-align:center;"|''175,167''
| style="text-align:center;"|'''24.7%'''
| style="text-align:center;"|''57,496''
|-
| style="text-align:center; background:#c8ffc8;"|[[Tulare County, California|Tulare]]
| style="text-align:center;"|'''75.1%'''
| style="text-align:center;"|''78,578''
| style="text-align:center;"|'''24.9%'''
| style="text-align:center;"|''26,113''
|-
| style="text-align:center; background:#c8ffc8;"|[[Modoc County, California|Modoc]]
| style="text-align:center;"|'''74.2%'''
| style="text-align:center;"|''3,279''
| style="text-align:center;"|'''25.8%'''
| style="text-align:center;"|''1,142''
|-
| style="text-align:center; background:#c8ffc8;"|[[Kings County, California|Kings]]
| style="text-align:center;"|'''73.7%'''
| style="text-align:center;"|''25,821''
| style="text-align:center;"|'''26.3%'''
| style="text-align:center;"|''9,244''
|-
| style="text-align:center; background:#c8ffc8;"|[[Madera County, California|Madera]]
| style="text-align:center;"|'''73.5%'''
| style="text-align:center;"|''30,906''
| style="text-align:center;"|'''26.5%'''
| style="text-align:center;"|''11,193''
|-
| style="text-align:center; background:#c8ffc8;"|[[Glenn County, California|Glenn]]
| style="text-align:center;"|'''73.3%'''
| style="text-align:center;"|''7,235''
| style="text-align:center;"|'''26.7%'''
| style="text-align:center;"|''2,644''
|-
| style="text-align:center; background:#c8ffc8;"|[[Tehama County, California|Tehama]]
| style="text-align:center;"|'''72.8%'''
| style="text-align:center;"|''17,777''
| style="text-align:center;"|'''27.2%'''
| style="text-align:center;"|''6,675''
|-
| style="text-align:center; background:#c8ffc8;"|[[Colusa County, California|Colusa]]
| style="text-align:center;"|'''71.6%'''
| style="text-align:center;"|''4,556''
| style="text-align:center;"|'''28.4%'''
| style="text-align:center;"|''1,815''
|-
| style="text-align:center; background:#c8ffc8;"|[[Lassen County, California|Lassen]]
| style="text-align:center;"|'''71.3%'''
| style="text-align:center;"|''8,021''
| style="text-align:center;"|'''28.7%'''
| style="text-align:center;"|''3,241''
|-
| style="text-align:center; background:#c8ffc8;"|[[Merced County, California|Merced]]
| style="text-align:center;"|'''70.8%'''
| style="text-align:center;"|''44,800''
| style="text-align:center;"|'''29.2%'''
| style="text-align:center;"|''18,520''
|-
| style="text-align:center; background:#c8ffc8;"|[[Sutter County, California|Sutter]]
| style="text-align:center;"|'''70.4%'''
| style="text-align:center;"|''23,032''
| style="text-align:center;"|'''29.6%'''
| style="text-align:center;"|''9,707''
|-
| style="text-align:center; background:#c8ffc8;"|[[Shasta County, California|Shasta]]
| style="text-align:center;"|'''69.7%'''
| style="text-align:center;"|''55,698''
| style="text-align:center;"|'''30.3%'''
| style="text-align:center;"|''24,224''
|-
| style="text-align:center; background:#c8ffc8;"|[[Imperial County, California|Imperial]]
| style="text-align:center;"|'''69.7%'''
| style="text-align:center;"|''27,048''
| style="text-align:center;"|'''30.3%'''
| style="text-align:center;"|''11,783''
|-
| style="text-align:center; background:#c8ffc8;"|[[Fresno County, California|Fresno]]
| style="text-align:center;"|'''68.7%'''
| style="text-align:center;"|''185,993''
| style="text-align:center;"|'''31.3%'''
| style="text-align:center;"|''83,122''
|-
| style="text-align:center; background:#c8ffc8;"|[[Stanislaus County, California|Stanislaus]]
| style="text-align:center;"|'''67.9%'''
| style="text-align:center;"|''108,988''
| style="text-align:center;"|'''32.1%'''
| style="text-align:center;"|''51,598''
|-
| style="text-align:center; background:#c8ffc8;"|[[Yuba County, California|Yuba]]
| style="text-align:center;"|'''67.6%'''
| style="text-align:center;"|''14,323''
| style="text-align:center;"|'''32.4%'''
| style="text-align:center;"|''6,868''
|-
| style="text-align:center; background:#c8ffc8;"|[[San Bernardino County, California|San Bernardino]]
| style="text-align:center;"|'''66.8%'''
| style="text-align:center;"|''404,762''
| style="text-align:center;"|'''33.2%'''
| style="text-align:center;"|''202,227''
|-
| style="text-align:center; background:#c8ffc8;"|[[San Joaquin County, California|San Joaquin]]
| style="text-align:center;"|'''65.5%'''
| style="text-align:center;"|''135,728''
| style="text-align:center;"|'''34.5%'''
| style="text-align:center;"|''71,747''
|-
| style="text-align:center; background:#c8ffc8;"|[[Riverside County, California|Riverside]]
| style="text-align:center;"|'''64.7%'''
| style="text-align:center;"|''417,133''
| style="text-align:center;"|'''35.3%'''
| style="text-align:center;"|''228,449''
|-
| style="text-align:center; background:#c8ffc8;"|[[Sierra County, California|Sierra]]
| style="text-align:center;"|'''64.2%'''
| style="text-align:center;"|''1,273''
| style="text-align:center;"|'''35.8%'''
| style="text-align:center;"|''711''
|-
| style="text-align:center; background:#c8ffc8;"|[[Amador County, California|Amador]]
| style="text-align:center;"|'''64.0%'''
| style="text-align:center;"|''11,945''
| style="text-align:center;"|'''36.0%'''
| style="text-align:center;"|''6,725''
|-
| style="text-align:center; background:#c8ffc8;"|[[Calaveras County, California|Calaveras]]
| style="text-align:center;"|'''63.9%'''
| style="text-align:center;"|''14,624''
| style="text-align:center;"|'''36.1%'''
| style="text-align:center;"|''8,588''
|-
| style="text-align:center; background:#c8ffc8;"|[[Tuolumne County, California|Tuolumne]]
| style="text-align:center;"|'''62.6%'''
| style="text-align:center;"|''16,964''
| style="text-align:center;"|'''37.4%'''
| style="text-align:center;"|''10,163''
|-
| style="text-align:center; background:#c8ffc8;"|[[Mariposa County, California|Mariposa]]
| style="text-align:center;"|'''62.1%'''
| style="text-align:center;"|''5,961''
| style="text-align:center;"|'''37.9%'''
| style="text-align:center;"|''3,640''
|-
| style="text-align:center; background:#c8ffc8;"|[[Inyo County, California|Inyo]]
| style="text-align:center;"|'''60.6%'''
| style="text-align:center;"|''5,116''
| style="text-align:center;"|'''39.4%'''
| style="text-align:center;"|''3,334''
|-
| style="text-align:center; background:#c8ffc8;"|[[Del Norte County, California|Del Norte]]
| style="text-align:center;"|'''60.1%'''
| style="text-align:center;"|''5,658''
| style="text-align:center;"|'''39.9%'''
| style="text-align:center;"|''3,770''
|-
| style="text-align:center; background:#c8ffc8;"|[[Siskiyou County, California|Siskiyou]]
| style="text-align:center;"|'''60.0%'''
| style="text-align:center;"|''12,668''
| style="text-align:center;"|'''40.0%'''
| style="text-align:center;"|''8,475''
|-
| style="text-align:center; background:#c8ffc8;"|[[Plumas County, California|Plumas]]
| style="text-align:center;"|'''60.0%'''
| style="text-align:center;"|''6,576''
| style="text-align:center;"|'''40.0%'''
| style="text-align:center;"|''4,401''
|-
| style="text-align:center; background:#c8ffc8;"|[[Placer County, California|Placer]]
| style="text-align:center;"|'''59.8%'''
| style="text-align:center;"|''102,977''
| style="text-align:center;"|'''40.2%'''
| style="text-align:center;"|''69,444''
|-
| style="text-align:center; background:#c8ffc8;"|[[El Dorado County, California|El Dorado]]
| style="text-align:center;"|'''58.3%'''
| style="text-align:center;"|''53,837''
| style="text-align:center;"|'''41.7%'''
| style="text-align:center;"|''38,534''
|-
| style="text-align:center; background:#c8ffc8;"|[[Orange County, California|Orange]]
| style="text-align:center;"|'''57.7%'''
| style="text-align:center;"|''659,037''
| style="text-align:center;"|'''42.3%'''
| style="text-align:center;"|''484,015''
|-
| style="text-align:center; background:#c8ffc8;"|[[Trinity County, California|Trinity]]
| style="text-align:center;"|'''56.2%'''
| style="text-align:center;"|''3,563''
| style="text-align:center;"|'''43.8%'''
| style="text-align:center;"|''2,785''
|-
| style="text-align:center; background:#c8ffc8;"|[[Butte County, California|Butte]]
| style="text-align:center;"|'''56.1%'''
| style="text-align:center;"|''54,822''
| style="text-align:center;"|'''43.9%'''
| style="text-align:center;"|''43,045''
|-
| style="text-align:center; background:#c8ffc8;"|[[Solano County, California|Solano]]
| style="text-align:center;"|'''55.9%'''
| style="text-align:center;"|''89,292''
| style="text-align:center;"|'''44.1%'''
| style="text-align:center;"|''70,680''
|-
| style="text-align:center; background:#c8ffc8;"|[[San Benito County, California|San Benito]]
| style="text-align:center;"|'''54.8%'''
| style="text-align:center;"|''10,657''
| style="text-align:center;"|'''45.2%'''
| style="text-align:center;"|''8,794''
|-
| style="text-align:center; background:#c8ffc8;"|[[Sacramento County, California|Sacramento]]
| style="text-align:center;"|'''53.9%'''
| style="text-align:center;"|''289,378''
| style="text-align:center;"|'''46.1%'''
| style="text-align:center;"|''248,444''
|-
| style="text-align:center; background:#c8ffc8;"|[[San Diego County, California|San Diego]]
| style="text-align:center;"|'''53.8%'''
| style="text-align:center;"|''655,625''
| style="text-align:center;"|'''46.2%'''
| style="text-align:center;"|''565,054''
|-
| style="text-align:center; background:#c8ffc8;"|[[Ventura County, California|Ventura]]
| style="text-align:center;"|'''52.9%'''
| style="text-align:center;"|''178,719''
| style="text-align:center;"|'''47.1%'''
| style="text-align:center;"|''159,284''
|-
| style="text-align:center; background:#c8ffc8;"|[[Lake County, California|Lake]]
| style="text-align:center;"|'''52.0%'''
| style="text-align:center;"|''13,036''
| style="text-align:center;"|'''48.0%'''
| style="text-align:center;"|''12,080''
|-
| style="text-align:center; background:#c8ffc8;"|[[San Luis Obispo County, California|San Luis Obispo]]
| style="text-align:center;"|'''51.1%'''
| style="text-align:center;"|''67,304''
| style="text-align:center;"|'''48.9%'''
| style="text-align:center;"|''64,555''
|-
| style="text-align:center; background:#c8ffc8;"|[[Los Angeles County, California|Los Angeles]]
| style="text-align:center;"|'''50.1%'''
| style="text-align:center;"|''1,624,672''
| style="text-align:center;"|'''49.9%'''
| style="text-align:center;"|''1,622,287''
|-
| style="text-align:center; background:#c8ffc8;"|[[Nevada County, California|Nevada]]
| style="text-align:center;"|'''50.1%'''
| style="text-align:center;"|''27,617''
| style="text-align:center;"|'''49.9%'''
| style="text-align:center;"|''27,614''
|-
| style="text-align:center; background:#ffc8c8;"|[[Monterey County, California|Monterey]]
| style="text-align:center;"|'''48.4%'''
| style="text-align:center;"|''62,251''
| style="text-align:center;"|'''51.6%'''
| style="text-align:center;"|''66,191''
|-
| style="text-align:center; background:#ffc8c8;"|[[Santa Barbara County, California|Santa Barbara]]
| style="text-align:center;"|'''46.4%'''
| style="text-align:center;"|''80,117''
| style="text-align:center;"|'''53.6%'''
| style="text-align:center;"|''92,305''
|-
| style="text-align:center; background:#ffc8c8;"|[[Contra Costa County, California|Contra Costa]]
| style="text-align:center;"|'''44.6%'''
| style="text-align:center;"|''198,713''
| style="text-align:center;"|'''55.4%'''
| style="text-align:center;"|''246,753''
|-
| style="text-align:center; background:#ffc8c8;"|[[Napa County, California|Napa]]
| style="text-align:center;"|'''44.4%'''
| style="text-align:center;"|''26,227''
| style="text-align:center;"|'''55.6%'''
| style="text-align:center;"|''32,742''
|-
| style="text-align:center; background:#ffc8c8;"|[[Mono County, California|Mono]]
| style="text-align:center;"|'''44.2%'''
| style="text-align:center;"|''2,425''
| style="text-align:center;"|'''55.8%'''
| style="text-align:center;"|''3,050''
|-
| style="text-align:center; background:#ffc8c8;"|[[Santa Clara County, California|Santa Clara]]
| style="text-align:center;"|'''44.2%'''
| style="text-align:center;"|''291,347''
| style="text-align:center;"|'''55.8%'''
| style="text-align:center;"|''367,053''
|-
| style="text-align:center; background:#ffc8c8;"|[[Alpine County, California|Alpine]]
| style="text-align:center;"|'''43.6%'''
| style="text-align:center;"|''293''
| style="text-align:center;"|'''56.4%'''
| style="text-align:center;"|''379''
|-
| style="text-align:center; background:#ffc8c8;"|[[Yolo County, California|Yolo]]
| style="text-align:center;"|'''41.3%'''
| style="text-align:center;"|''32,816''
| style="text-align:center;"|'''56.4%'''
| style="text-align:center;"|''46,537''
|-
| style="text-align:center; background:#ffc8c8;"|[[Humboldt County, California|Humboldt]]
| style="text-align:center;"|'''39.9%'''
| style="text-align:center;"|''25,296''
| style="text-align:center;"|'''60.1%'''
| style="text-align:center;"|''37,963''
|-
| style="text-align:center; background:#ffc8c8;"|[[San Mateo County, California|San Mateo]]
| style="text-align:center;"|'''38.2%'''
| style="text-align:center;"|''114,695''
| style="text-align:center;"|'''61.8%'''
| style="text-align:center;"|''185,127''
|-
| style="text-align:center; background:#ffc8c8;"|[[Alameda County, California|Alameda]]
| style="text-align:center;"|'''38.0%'''
| style="text-align:center;"|''232,923''
| style="text-align:center;"|'''62.0%'''
| style="text-align:center;"|''378,692''
|-
| style="text-align:center; background:#ffc8c8;"|[[Mendocino County, California|Mendocino]]
| style="text-align:center;"|'''36.8%'''
| style="text-align:center;"|''14,649''
| style="text-align:center;"|'''63.2%'''
| style="text-align:center;"|''25,072''
|-
| style="text-align:center; background:#ffc8c8;"|[[Sonoma County, California|Sonoma]]
| style="text-align:center;"|'''33.5%'''
| style="text-align:center;"|''76,143''
| style="text-align:center;"|'''66.5%'''
| style="text-align:center;"|''150,763''
|-
| style="text-align:center; background:#ffc8c8;"|[[Santa Cruz County, California|Santa Cruz]]
| style="text-align:center;"|'''28.7%'''
| style="text-align:center;"|''36,163''
| style="text-align:center;"|'''71.3%'''
| style="text-align:center;"|''89,793''
|-
| style="text-align:center; background:#ffc8c8;"|[[Marin County, California|Marin]]
| style="text-align:center;"|'''24.9%'''
| style="text-align:center;"|''34,324''
| style="text-align:center;"|'''75.1%'''
| style="text-align:center;"|''103,341''
|- style="text-align:center;"
| style="background:#ffc8c8;"|[[San Francisco]]
||'''24.8%'''
||''92,536''
||'''75.2%'''
||''280,491''
|}

==Post-election events==
{{See also|Protests against Proposition 8 supporters}}

===Immediate response===
[[File:Prop 8 Protest Nov 9 2008 1.jpg|thumb|A post Prop 8 demonstration at the State Capitol]]
In California, a constitutional amendment passed by the electorate takes effect the day after the election.<ref name="Constitution Article 18" /> On the evening of November 4 the "Yes on 8" campaign issued a statement by Ron Prentice, the chairman of ProtectMarriage.com, saying "The people of California stood up for traditional marriage and reclaimed this great institution."<ref>{{cite web|title=Statement on Proposition 8 Passing by Ron Prentice, Chairman of ProtectMarriage.com |publisher=ProtectMarriage.com |date=November 4, 2008 |url=http://www.protectmarriage.com/article/statement-on-proposition-8-passing-by-ron-prentice-chairman-of-protectmarriage-com |access-date=November 14, 2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081109045513/http://www.protectmarriage.com/article/statement-on-proposition-8-passing-by-ron-prentice-chairman-of-protectmarriage-com |archive-date=November 9, 2008 }}</ref> The organizers of the "No on Prop 8" campaign issued a statement on November 6 saying, "Tuesday's vote was deeply disappointing to all who believe in equal treatment under the law."<ref>{{cite web |title=Final Statement from No on Prop 8 Campaign |publisher=No On 8, Equality for All |date=November 6, 2008 |url=http://www.noonprop8.com/ |access-date=November 6, 2008}}</ref> The counties of [[Los Angeles County, California|Los Angeles]], [[San Francisco County, California|San Francisco]], [[Yolo County, California|Yolo]], [[Kern County, California|Kern]], [[Santa Barbara County, California|Santa Barbara]], [[San Luis Obispo County, California|San Luis Obispo]], [[Sonoma County|Sonoma]], [[San Diego County, California|San Diego]], [[San Bernardino County, California|San Bernardino]], [[Sacramento County, California|Sacramento]], and [[Tuolumne County, California|Tuolumne]] stopped issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples the day after the election.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.kcra.com/politics/17907210/detail.html |title=Same-Sex Couple Tries To Marry, Turned Away |publisher=KCRA.com |date=November 5, 2008 |access-date=November 5, 2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120222045907/http://www.kcra.com/politics/17907210/detail.html |archive-date=February 22, 2012 }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=http://m.cnn.com/cnn/archive/archive/detail/192095/full%3Bjsessionid=D916ADA38ABF74C8EB78D186E350AE1F.live5i |title=Los Angeles stops issuing marriage licenses to gay couples |work=CNN|date=November 5, 2008 |access-date=March 29, 2009 |author=Emanuella Grinberg |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160304092517/http://m.cnn.com/cnn/archive/archive/detail/192095/full%3Bjsessionid%3DD916ADA38ABF74C8EB78D186E350AE1F.live5i |archive-date=March 4, 2016 }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.bakersfield.com/102/story/601308.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160304035801/http://www.bakersfield.com/102/story/601308.html |archive-date=March 4, 2016 |title=County clerk: No more marriage licenses will be issued to same-sex couples |publisher=Bakersfield Californian |author=Jenny Shearer |date=November 5, 2008 |access-date=March 29, 2009}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nation-world/bal-te.ballot06nov06-story.html |title=Voters Approve Gay Marriage Bans in California, Arizona, Florida |date=November 6, 2008 |website=The Baltimore Sun |access-date=March 12, 2021}}</ref>

===Fines===
Following an audit by the [[California Franchise Tax Board]], the proponents of Proposition 8 are facing a fine of $49,000 for violating California campaign finance disclosure laws, by failing to report $1,169,292 in contributions under the timelines required by state law.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2012/08/prop-8-campaign-faces-fines-for-violating-campaign-disclosures.html|title=Prop. 8 campaign faces fines for violating campaign disclosures|newspaper=[[Sacramento Bee]]|author=Oot, Torey Van|date=August 7, 2012|access-date=August 14, 2012|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120811005500/http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2012/08/prop-8-campaign-faces-fines-for-violating-campaign-disclosures.html|archive-date=August 11, 2012|df=mdy-all}}</ref>

=== Protests ===
Following the passage of Proposition 8, mass protests took place across the state. These included protests outside the [[Los Angeles California Temple]] of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in [[Westwood, Los Angeles, California|Westwood, Los Angeles]];<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-protest7-2008nov07,0,3827549.story|title=Prop. 8 protesters target Mormon temple in Westwood|newspaper=[[Los Angeles Times]]|author1=Garrison, Jessica |author2=Lin, Joanne |name-list-style=amp |date=2008-11-06|access-date=2008-11-06}}</ref> a march through [[Hollywood, Los Angeles|Hollywood]] that blocked traffic and elicited police intervention;<ref>{{cite web|url=http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Gay-Marriage-Protests-In-Los-Angeles-California-After-Referendum-Result-In-Favour-Of-Ban/Article/200811115144768?lpos=World_News_Second_World_News_Article_Teaser_Region_0&lid=ARTICLE_15144768_Gay_Marriage%3A_Protests_In_Los_Angeles%2C_California%2C_After_Referendum_Result_In_Favour_Of_Ban|title=Gay Marriage Ban Protests In LA |publisher=[[Sky News]]|date=2008-11-06|access-date=2008-11-06}}</ref> and a [[candlelight vigil]] in front of the [[Sacramento]] Gay and Lesbian Center, along with a protest in front of the California State Capitol.<ref>{{cite web |title=Protests Against Gay-Marriage Ban Continue |url=http://www.kcra.com/politics/17943031/detail.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120306032352/http://www.kcra.com/politics/17943031/detail.html |archive-date=2012-03-06 |access-date=2008-11-17 |publisher=KCRA.com}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/1374863.html |title=Sacramento rally protests Proposition 8 |newspaper=[[The Sacramento Bee]] |author=Garza, Samantha |date=2008-11-06 |access-date=2008-11-06 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081211133100/http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/1374863.html |archive-date=December 11, 2008 }}</ref>

In [[San Francisco]], thousands gathered in front of the City Hall to protest the proposition and to perform a candlelit vigil. Speakers who voiced their opinion in opposition of Proposition 8 included state senator [[Mark Leno]] and [[Mayor of San Francisco]] [[Gavin Newsom]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.ktvu.com/politics/17914830/detail.html|title=Thousands Attend Vigil Protesting Passage Of Prop. 8|publisher=[[KTVU]]|date=2008-11-06|access-date=2008-11-06|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081109010730/http://www.ktvu.com/politics/17914830/detail.html|archive-date=2008-11-09}}</ref>

Outside California, a protest at the headquarters of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in [[Salt Lake City]], [[Utah]]<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.abc4.com/content/news/slc/story/UPDATE-Same-sex-marriage-protest-held-near-LDS/Amue7PTHSkO-gAdlczv7qg.cspx|title=Same-sex marriage protest held near LDS Temple Square|publisher=abc4.com|author1=Brent Hunsaker|author2=Kerry Kinsey|name-list-style=amp|date=2008-11-07|access-date=2009-03-20|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110810025107/http://www.abc4.com/content/news/slc/story/UPDATE-Same-sex-marriage-protest-held-near-LDS/Amue7PTHSkO-gAdlczv7qg.cspx|archive-date=2011-08-10}}</ref> was addressed by local [[LGBT social movements|gay rights]] supporters including former [[Mayor of Salt Lake City|Salt Lake City Mayor]] [[Rocky Anderson]] and three gay members of the Utah Legislature: Senator [[Scott McCoy]] and Representatives [[Christine Johnson (Utah politician)|Christine Johnson]] and [[Jackie Biskupski]].<ref>{{cite news|url=http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,705261463,00.html|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081110062204/http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,705261463,00.html|url-status=dead|archive-date=November 10, 2008|title=Prop. 8 protest draws thousands in Salt Lake City|newspaper=[[The Deseret News]]|author1=Jared Page |author2=Clayton Norlen |name-list-style=amp |date=2008-11-08|access-date=2008-11-11}}</ref> On November 12, 2008, more than 10,000 protesters gathered outside the [[Manhattan New York Temple]] to protest the support of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for Proposition 8.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.foxnews.com/story/new-yorkers-protest-gay-marriage-ban-outside-mormon-church |title=New Yorkers Protest Gay Marriage Ban Outside Mormon Church |publisher=Foxnews.com |date=2008-11-13 |access-date=2013-12-02 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121025164502/http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,451446,00.html |archive-date=2012-10-25 }}</ref> On November 15, 2008, tens of thousands of people in cities around the United States participated in rallies to protest the passage of Proposition 8 and to promote the expansion of civil marriage to same-sex couples throughout the nation.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/16/us/16protest.html|title=Across U.S., Big Rallies for Same-Sex Marriage|date=November 15, 2008|first=JESSE|last=McKINLEY | work=The New York Times}}</ref>

===Boycotts===
The passage of Proposition 8 led to opponents responding by publicly [[shame|shaming]] its supporters as [[Prejudice|bigots]] and [[boycotting]] supporters' businesses and employers. On November 7, 2008, a [[blog]]ger revealed that Scott Eckern, then [[Artistic director|Artistic Director]] of [[California Musical Theatre]], had made a personal donation of $1,000 to the "Yes on 8" campaign.<ref>{{Cite news | url=http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/stories/2008/11/10/daily30.html| title=Report: Musical Theatre board cancels emergency meeting over Prop. 8 support| access-date=2008-11-11| publisher=American City Business Journals| first=Mark| last=Anderson| date=2008-11-11}}</ref> All campaign contributions of $1,000 or more required a name, home and occupation be listed. On November 10, gay artists condemned Eckern and called for a boycott of California Musical Theatre.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.sacbee.com/124/story/1387273.html |title=Prop. 8 gift gets theater's leader in a ruckus |access-date=2008-11-11 |publisher=sacbe.com |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090214110556/http://www.sacbee.com/124/story/1387273.html |archive-date=February 14, 2009 }}</ref> On November 11, Eckern issued an apology on the online site ''Playbill'' stating that a similar donation had been made to a [[human rights]] organization that includes gay rights as one of its causes.<ref>{{cite news | url=http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/culturemonster/2008/11/prop-8-blowback.html| title=Prop. 8 repercussions hit Sacramento theater| access-date=2008-11-11| work=Los Angeles times | date=2008-11-11}}</ref> On November 12, Eckern resigned from California Musical Theatre. [[Executive producer]] of the CMT Richard Lewis stated that Eckern was not forced to resign but did so of his own accord.<ref>{{cite news | first=Marcus | last=Crowder | title=Theater exec Eckern, caught in Prop. 8 flap, resigns | url=http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/1393290.html | newspaper=The Sacramento Bee | date=2008-11-13 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090215162239/http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/1393290.html | archive-date=2009-02-15 }}</ref>

Richard Raddon, Director of the [[Los Angeles Film Festival]], also resigned due to boycotts by the [[gay community]].<ref>{{cite news | title=L.A. Film Festival director Richard Raddon resigns | url=https://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-et-raddonresigns26-2008nov26,0,5947908.story | newspaper=[[Los Angeles Times]] | date=2008-11-25 | first=Rachel | last=Abramowitz}}</ref>

Protests in California were marred by racial incidents. Due to their support of Proposition 8, reported as high as 70 percent, some [[African Americans]] attending events were allegedly subjected to [[Racism in united states#Racism against African Americans|racial epithets and felt threatened.]] [[Speaker of the California State Assembly|California Assembly Speaker]] [[Karen Bass]] stated she was disturbed by the treatment of African Americans in the aftermath of the passage of the proposition.
In reaction to the racial incidents, [[Evan Wolfson]] said, "In any fight, there will be people who say things they shouldn't say, but that shouldn't divert attention from what the vast majority are saying against this, that it's a terrible injustice."<ref>{{cite news | first=Alison | last=Stateman | title=What Happens If You're on Gay Rights' 'Enemies List' | date=2008-11-15  | url =http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1859323,00.html?xid=rss-topstories | archive-url =https://web.archive.org/web/20081127184643/http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1859323,00.html?xid=rss-topstories | archive-date =November 27, 2008 | work =[[Time (magazine)|Time]] | access-date = 2009-07-19 }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.cnn.com/2009/LIVING/06/12/what.matters.bass.gay.marriage/index.html |title=Lawmaker: Don't Blame Blacks for Proposition 8 |date=June 12, 2009 |website=CNN |access-date=March 12, 2021}}</ref>

===Media===
{{anchor|Musical}}To protest the passage of Proposition 8, [[musical theatre]] composer [[Marc Shaiman]] wrote a satiric mini-musical called "Prop 8&nbsp;— The Musical".<ref>{{cite web |title="Prop 8 - The Musical" starring Jack Black, John C. Reilly, and many more... |url=https://funnyordie.com/videos/c0cf508ff8/prop-8-the-musical-starring-jack-black-john-c-reilly-and-many-more-from-fod-team-jack-black-craig-robinson-john-c-reilly-and-rashida-jones |website=Funny or Die |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180804223611/https://funnyordie.com/videos/c0cf508ff8/prop-8-the-musical-starring-jack-black-john-c-reilly-and-many-more-from-fod-team-jack-black-craig-robinson-john-c-reilly-and-rashida-jones |archive-date=August 4, 2018 |date=December 2, 2008 |url-status=dead}}</ref> The three-minute video was distributed on the internet at [[Funny or Die|FunnyOrDie.com]]. The cast includes [[Jack Black]] (who plays [[Jesus]]), [[Nicole Parker]], [[Neil Patrick Harris]], [[John C. Reilly]], [[Allison Janney]], [[Andy Richter]], [[Maya Rudolph]], [[Margaret Cho]], [[Rashida Jones]], [[Kathy Najimy]], [[Sarah Chalke]], [[Jenifer Lewis|Jennifer Lewis]], [[John Hill (actor)|John Hill]] and other celebrities. It was directed by [[Adam Shankman]]. The video satirizes [[Christian Church|Christian churches]] that selectively [[Cafeteria Christianity|pick and choose]] biblical doctrines to follow.<ref>[https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2008-jun-02-fi-wedding2-story.html "Gay marriage a gift to California's economy"], [[Los Angeles Times]], LATimes.com, June 2, 2008</ref> It received 1.2 million internet hits in its first day,<ref>Itzkoff, Dave. [http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/04/marc-shaiman-on-prop-8-the-musical/?hp "Marc Shaiman on 'Prop 8&nbsp;— The Musical'"], ''[[The New York Times]]'', December 4, 2008</ref><ref>[http://www.today.com/id/28055296 "Star-studded Web video protests Prop 8&nbsp;– Spoof musical's blockbuster cast includes Jack Black as Jesus"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200814202137/http://www.today.com/id/28055296 |date=2020-08-14 }}, [[Associated Press]], [[MSN]].com, December 4, 2008</ref> won the 2009 [[Webby Award]] category Comedy: Individual Short or Episode,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.webbyawards.com/webbys/current.php?media_id=97&season=13#film_comedy_short|title=Webby Nominees: 13th Annual Webby Awards Nominees & Winners|publisher=[[The Webby Awards]]|access-date=2013-03-19}}</ref> and won a [[GLAAD]] media award.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.broadwayworld.com/article/Shaimans_Prop_8the_musical_Wins_GLAAD_Award_Honors_20010101|title=Shaiman's 'Prop 8-The Musical' Wins GLAAD Award Honors|website=Broadway World|date=2009-04-21|access-date=2009-04-25}}</ref>

In 2010, ''[[8: The Mormon Proposition]]'', a documentary alleging the involvement of [[the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints]] in the passage of Proposition 8. Written by [[Reed Cowan]] and narrated by [[Dustin Lance Black]], the film divided critics over a perceived heavy-handed approach to the church's involvement; it won the 2011 [[GLAAD Media Award for Outstanding Documentary]].

In 2011, ''[[8 (play)|8]]'', a play re-enacting the proceedings of ''[[Perry v. Brown]]'' in a condensed manner of [[documentary theatre]], was premiered on Broadway.

==Controversies about campaign financing and donations==
On November 13, 2008, Fred Karger of the group Californians Against Hate filed a complaint with the [[California Fair Political Practices Commission]] that [[campaign finance]] reports filed by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints under-reported its actual Proposition 8 campaign expenses as $2,078.97.<ref>{{cite web | url=http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,705258856,00.html | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081216083634/http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,705258856,00.html | url-status=dead | archive-date=December 16, 2008 | title=LDS Church donates to pro-Prop. 8 group | work=Deseret News | publisher=The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints | date=2008-10-29 | access-date=2009-02-07}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/26/us/politics/26marriage.html|title=Inquiry Set on Mormon Aid for California Marriage Vote|newspaper=The New York Times|author=McKinley, Jesse|date=2008-11-25|access-date=2008-11-26}}</ref> Karger charged that the Church's failure to report "non-monetary contributions" placed it in violation of California's Political [[Reform Act]]. Church spokesman Scott Trotter denied the charges, saying the church had "fully complied with the reporting requirements" and a "further report will be filed on or before <nowiki>[...the]</nowiki> due date, Jan. 30, 2009."<ref>{{cite web | url=http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,705262980,00.html?pg=1 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090205121351/http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,705262980,00.html?pg=1 | url-status=dead | archive-date=February 5, 2009 | title=Prop 8 foes file complaint against LDS | work=Deseret News | publisher=The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints | date=2008-11-14 | access-date=2009-02-07}}</ref>

In a report filed with the California Secretary of State's office January 30, 2009, the LDS Church reported its non-monetary expenditures as $189,903.58.<ref>{{cite web | url=http://cal-access.ss.ca.gov/Campaign/Committees/Detail.aspx?id=1311334&session=2007 | title=Campaign Finance Summary Information | author=The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints | publisher=California Secretary of State | date=2009-01-30 | access-date=2009-02-07}}</ref> On January 31, the ''[[San Francisco Chronicle]]'' stated, "While the deadline for the report, which covers the period from July 1 to Dec. 31, is <nowiki>[February 2]</nowiki>, many campaign contributions by major donors and independent committees must be reported within days after they're made." The article further stated that the executive director of the FPPC stated that the LDS church was still under investigation, and "In general, however, 'cases like these hinge over what had to be reported and when it had to be reported.' A late report covering disputed filings 'wouldn't remove the obligation to file on time' but would be considered by investigators."<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/01/31/BA7615KLB9.DTL |title=Mormon church reports $190,000 Prop. 8 expenses |access-date=2009-04-03 |last=Wildermuth|first=John |newspaper=San Francisco Chronicle |date=2009-01-31}}</ref>

The ''[[Boston Herald]]'' reported on February 2, 2009:<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/view/2009_02_02_Mormon_church_reveals_deeper_involvement_in_California_s_Proposition_8/ |title=Mormon church reveals deeper involvement in California's Proposition 8 |newspaper=Boston Herald |date=2 February 2009 |access-date=2009-02-08 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090214004712/http://www.bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/view/2009_02_02_Mormon_church_reveals_deeper_involvement_in_California_s_Proposition_8/ |archive-date=February 14, 2009 }}</ref>
{{blockquote|While many church members had donated directly to the Yes on 8 campaign—some estimates of Mormon giving range as high as $20&nbsp;million—the church itself had previously reported little direct campaign activity.

But in the filing made Friday, the Mormon church reported thousands in travel expenses, such as [[airline ticket]]s, hotel rooms and [[car rental]]s for the campaign. The church also reported $96,849.31 worth of 'compensated staff time'—hours that church employees spent working to pass the same-sex marriage ban.}}

In a statement issued February 2, 2009, the LDS Church responded to "erroneous news reports", saying its subsequent disclosure was "in no way prompted by an investigation by the California Fair Political Practices Commission," that "We believe we have complied with California law," and that the report's [[filing date]] met the January 31, 2009 deadline:<ref>
{{cite web|url=https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/church-clarifies-proposition-8-filing-corrects-erroneous-news-reports|title=Church Clarifies Proposition 8 Filing, Corrects Erroneous News Reports|publisher=LDS Church|date=2 February 2009|access-date=2009-02-04}}</ref>
{{blockquote|The Church, like other organizations on both sides of the ballot issue, was required to publicly file these donations by the 31&nbsp;January deadline. The Church has been filing required contribution reports throughout the campaign. Those earlier donations 'initially stated' were filed for specific time periods prior to this last reporting period, as required by law. Other groups are also filing their final contribution reports to meet the same deadline.}}

On January 7, 2009, supporters of Proposition 8 filed a federal lawsuit to block public disclosure of their donations. Alleging threats against their lives as well as other forms of harassment, the lawsuit also requested a [[Injunction|preliminary injunction]] that ordered the California Secretary of State to remove information about donations posted on its website. Opponents of Proposition 8 called it "hypocritical" that its supporters would refer to their support of the measure as the "will of the people" while seeking to overturn voter-approved campaign disclosure laws.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://cbs5.com/national/proposition.8.donors.2.903852.html |title=Calif.'s Prop. 8 Supporters Want Donors Anonymous |date=2009-01-09 |access-date=2009-03-28 |publisher=cbs5.com |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090204200558/http://cbs5.com/national/proposition.8.donors.2.903852.html |archive-date=February 4, 2009 }}</ref> [[United States federal judge|U.S. District Judge]] Morrison England Jr. denied that request on January 29; he said that the public had the right to know about donors of political causes, that he did not agree that the plaintiffs had a probability of success in court, and that they had not proven they would suffer "irreparable injury" if he did not grant the preliminary injunction.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/01/29/state/n135106S46.DTL |title=Judge: Anti-gay marriage donors must be public |last=Lawrence |first=Steve |date=2009-01-29 |agency=Associated Press |access-date=2009-01-29 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090215050438/http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=%2Fn%2Fa%2F2009%2F01%2F29%2Fstate%2Fn135106S46.DTL |archive-date=February 15, 2009 }}</ref>

== Litigation ==
===California Supreme Court cases===
[[File:Prop 8 Rally in Market St.jpg|thumb|180px|Protesters at the "Day of Decision" rally marched up [[Market Street (San Francisco)|Market Street]] in downtown [[San Francisco]] following the [[California Supreme Court]] ruling.]]
[[File:CACourt protest.jpg|thumb|180px|Pro and Anti-Proposition 8 protesters rally in front of the [[San Francisco City Hall]] on the day of the [[Lawsuits to overturn Proposition 8|Supreme Court hearings]].]]
{{Main|Strauss v. Horton}}

After the passage of Proposition 8, a number of lawsuits were filed by against the state and state officials with the intent of overturning the measure and arguing that Proposition 8 should not have retroactive effect on existing same-sex marriages. On November 13, 2008, the [[California Supreme Court]] asked California Attorney General [[Jerry Brown]] for an opinion on whether the Court should accept these cases for review and whether the measure should be suspended while they decide the case. On November 19, the Court accepted three lawsuits challenging Proposition 8 but denied the requests to stay its enforcement.<ref name=S168047>{{cite news|url=http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/presscenter/newsreleases/NR66-08.PDF|title=California Supreme Court Takes Action on Proposition 8|date=2008-11-19|access-date=2008-11-19|publisher=Judicial Council of California}}</ref> The Court asked for final briefs by January 5, 2009. [[Oral argument]]s were held on March 5, 2009.

On Tuesday May 26 the court ruled that "The Amendment to the State Constitution referred to as Proposition 8 is valid and enforceable from the moment it was passed."{{Citation needed|date=June 2009}} The court also held that "Proposition 8 must be understood as creating a limited exception to the state equal protection clause."<ref name="CSC-2009-05-26">{{cite web|url=http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S168047.PDF |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090528012646/http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S168047.PDF |archive-date=2009-05-28 |title=Ruling in ''Strauss, et al. v. Horton'' and related cases, nos. S168047, S168066, S168078, California Supreme Court, May 26, 2009 |access-date=2013-12-02 }}</ref> Justice Moreno in his lone dissenting opinion, argued that such a change to the Constitution should only be implemented "by a constitutional revision to modify the equal protection clause to protect some, rather than all, similarly situated persons" and not by a simple majority vote.

The Court did rule that their decision cannot be applied to retroactively annul marriages that were transacted while the practice was legal in the state of California.<ref name="courtrule"/> Proposition 8 has no [[Ex post facto law|retroactive]] effect. The [[California Supreme Court]] ruled unanimously on May 26, 2009, that the approximately 18,000 [[same-sex marriage]]s that had occurred prior to Proposition 8's passage would still be valid and must continue to be recognized in the state, since the amendment does not state explicitly that it would nullify the [[same-sex marriage]]s performed before it took effect.<ref name="courtrule">{{cite web|url=http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S168047.PDF |title=Strauss v. Horton |publisher=[[California Supreme Court]] |author=George, Ronald M. |date=2009-05-26 |access-date=2009-05-26 |archive-url=http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20090528012646/http%3A//www%2Ecourtinfo%2Eca%2Egov/opinions/documents/S168047%2EPDF |archive-date= May 28, 2009 }}</ref>

Later legislation clarified that same-sex couples who married out-of-state within the window of legality would also retain their legal marriage rights. The bill was signed by Governor [[Arnold Schwarzenegger]] on October 11, 2009.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://sacramento.bizjournals.com/sacramento/stories/2009/10/12/daily8.html|title=California to recognize some out-of-state gay marriages|publisher=Sacramento Biz Journal|author=Robertson, Kathy|date=2009-10-12|access-date=2009-10-12}}</ref>

===Federal challenges===
====''Smelt v. United States''====
Immediately following the passage of Proposition 8, Arthur Smelt and Christopher Hammer filed suit in the Southern Division of the [[United States District Court for the Central District of California]], in [[Orange County, California|Orange County]]. In the case, ''Smelt v. United States'', the couple argued that Proposition 8 and the [[Federal Defense of Marriage Act]] violated the [[Equal Protection Clause]] of the American [[Constitution of the United States|constitution]].<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.clearinghouse.net/detail.php?id=12557 |title=Smelt v United States |website=Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse |access-date=March 12, 2021}}</ref> The [[United States Justice Department]] filed a [[Motion (legal)|motion to dismiss]] the case because the "plaintiffs are married, and their challenge to the federal [[Defense of Marriage Act]] ("DOMA") poses a different set of questions."<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hVLXVV6bmG_wjIN5b_AzLQvPaKiwD98P72QG1|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090617023850/http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hVLXVV6bmG_wjIN5b_AzLQvPaKiwD98P72QG1|url-status=dead|archive-date=June 17, 2009|title=DOJ moves to dismiss first fed gay marriage case|author=Deutsch, Linda|author-link=Linda Deutsch |agency=Associated Press|date=2009-06-12|access-date=2009-06-12}}</ref> On July 15, 2009, [[United States federal judge|District Judge]] Carter dismissed the part of Smelt that challenged Proposition 8, finding that the fact that the plaintiffs were already legally married in California meant they had no standing to challenge Proposition 8. The challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act, however, remained intact.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://hunterforjustice.typepad.com/files/smelt-order-dismg-prop-8-claim.pdf|title=Order in Smelt v USA|access-date=2009-07-18}}</ref> The remainder of the case was heard on August 3, 2009, in an Orange County district court.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/06/22/MNPL18BIJJ.DTL&tsp=1|title=Gay couple's weapon in lawsuit: Obama's words|newspaper=[[San Francisco Chronicle]]|author=Egelko, Bob|date=2009-06-23|access-date=2009-06-23}}</ref> The lawsuit was thrown out because the two men had filed suit against the federal government in a state court, a technicality which meant the suit needed to be re-filed.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hVLXVV6bmG_wjIN5b_AzLQvPaKiwD9A9HD880|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090911202135/http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hVLXVV6bmG_wjIN5b_AzLQvPaKiwD9A9HD880|url-status=dead|archive-date=September 11, 2009|title=US judge nixes suit that split Obama, gays|agency=Associated Press|date=2009-08-24|access-date=2009-08-24}}</ref>

====''Perry v. Schwarzenegger''====
{{Main|Perry v. Schwarzenegger}}
On the day of ''[[Strauss v. Horton]]''{{'s}} decision, the [[American Foundation for Equal Rights]] (AFER) filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California to challenge the validity of Proposition 8. [[Lambda Legal]], the [[ACLU]], and the [[National Center for Lesbian Rights]] have since announced their support for the lawsuit.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sdut-ca-gay-marriage-federal-062609-2009jun26-story.html |agency=The Associated Press |title=Groups Back Federal Challenge to Gay Marriage Ban |date=June 26, 2009 |website=The San Diego Union-Tribune |access-date=March 12, 2021}}</ref> [[San Francisco]] filed a motion to and was granted intervenor status in the case, saying that their work in ''[[In re Marriage Cases]]'' and ''[[Strauss v. Horton]]'' provided them with "extensive evidence and proposed findings on [[strict scrutiny]] factors and factual rebuttals to long claimed justifications for marriage discrimination".<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.sfgov.org/site/city_attorney_page.asp?id=108390|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120505085950/http://www.sfgov.org/site/city_attorney_page.asp?id=108390|archive-date=2012-05-05|title=San Francisco Moves to Intervene in Federal Challenge to Proposition 8|publisher=[[San Francisco]] City Attorney's Office|date=2009-07-23|access-date=2009-07-23}}</ref>

California Attorney General, and former and later again Governor [[Jerry Brown]] backed the lawsuit, saying that Proposition 8 violates the U.S. Constitution and should be struck down.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-gay-marriage13-2009jun13,0,5786790.story|title=Jerry Brown again says Prop. 8 should be struck down|newspaper=[[Los Angeles Times]]|author1=Dolan, Mora |author2=Williams, Carol J. |name-list-style=amp |date=2009-06-13|access-date=2009-06-18}}</ref> Governor [[Arnold Schwarzenegger]] took a more neutral path,<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/08/19/BA7T19AQ10.DTL&tsp=1|title=Judge sets January trial for Prop. 8 lawsuit|newspaper=[[San Francisco Chronicle]]|author=Egelko, Bob|date=2009-08-19|access-date=2009-08-19}}</ref> saying that he supported the lawsuit because the Proposition 8 conflict asks "important constitutional questions that require and warrant judicial determination." Because this means that the Californian government will not defend the law in court,<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/06/17/BA5A188J6C.DTL&type=politics|title=Governor backs federal review of Prop. 8|newspaper=[[San Francisco Chronicle]]|author=Egelko, Bob|date=2009-06-17|access-date=2009-06-18}}</ref> the proponents of Proposition 8's campaign were granted the right to intervene as defendants.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/12-144 |title=Hollingswork v. Perry |website=Cornell Law School |access-date=September 15, 2021}}</ref> The case was first heard on July 2, 2009, in the [[United States District Court for the Northern District of California]] in [[San Francisco]], Judge [[Vaughn R. Walker]] presiding.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.ebar.com/news/article.php?sec=news&article=4003|title=Brown still fighting Prop 8|publisher=Bay Area Reporter|author=Laird, Cynthia|date=2009-06-18|access-date=2009-06-23}}</ref>

In an act unprecedented in California history both the Governor and Attorney General refused to defend a constitutional amendment.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.sacbee.com/2010/12/06/3235672/live-from-san-francisco-its-proposition.html|title=Live from San Francisco|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101208032041/http://www.sacbee.com/2010/12/06/3235672/live-from-san-francisco-its-proposition.html|archive-date=December 8, 2010}}</ref>

In August, Judge Walker heard further requests for intervenor status and ordered a trial set for January 2010.
On August 4, 2010, U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker ruled Proposition 8 unconstitutional, but at the same time temporarily provided for a suspension of the ruling while he considered whether to grant an indefinite suspension pending appeal.<ref>{{cite news| url=http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/08/04/california.same.sex.ruling/index.html?hpt=T2 | work=CNN | title=Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage | date=2010-08-05}}</ref> Walker lifted the stay on August 12, 2010, thus allowing same-sex marriages to be performed as of August 18, 2010.<ref>{{cite news|title=Judge Sets End to Ban on Gay Marriage in California|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/13/us/13prop.html|newspaper=The New York Times|access-date=12 August 2010 | first=Jesse | last=McKinley | date=2010-08-12}}</ref>

On August 16, 2010, the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit]] imposed a stay of all new same-sex marriages in the State of California. It also scheduled an accelerated time table for hearing an appeal of Judge Walker's ruling.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/08/17/2984912.htm?section=world|title=California gay marriages on hold again|last=((Reuters))|date=17 August 2010|publisher=Australian Broadcasting Corporation|access-date=17 August 2010}}</ref> Before the appeal trial begins, there will be a December 6, 2010{{update after|2010|12|6}} hearing on who has [[legal standing]] to appeal the District Court's decision and whether the proposition violates equal protection rights.<ref>{{Cite news | url = http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/11/prop-8-hearing-on-gay-marriage-will-be-filmed-by-c-span.html | newspaper = Los Angeles Times | date =2010-11-17 | access-date=2010-11-18 | title=L.A. Now}}</ref>

==Legal challenges==
Following the passing of Proposition 8 in 2008, and the subsequent mass protests, several lawsuits were filed in both the [[California Supreme Court|State Supreme Court]] and in the [[Federal District Court]].

=== State court: ''Strauss v. Horton'' ===
{{main|Strauss v. Horton}}
In considering the cases within the state courts, on November 13, 2008, the [[California Supreme Court]] asked California Attorney General [[Jerry Brown]] for an opinion on whether the Court should accept these cases for review and whether the measure should be suspended while they decide the case. On November 19, the Court accepted three lawsuits challenging Proposition 8, which consolidated into ''[[Strauss v. Horton]]''.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/presscenter/newsreleases/NR66-08.PDF |title=California Supreme Court Takes Action on Proposition 8 |date=November 19, 2008 |access-date=November 19, 2008 |publisher=Judicial Council of California}}</ref> The Court rendered its decision on May 26, 2009. The majority decision was that Proposition 8 "carved out a limited [or 'narrow'] exception to the state equal protection clause"; [[Carlos R. Moreno|Justice Moreno]] dissented that exceptions to the [[equal protection clause]] could not be made by any majority since its whole purpose was to protect minorities against the will of a majority. Until overturned by ''[[Hollingsworth v. Perry]]'' (below), the ruling established that Proposition 8 was valid as voted, but that marriages performed before it went into effect would remain valid.

=== Federal court ===
{{main|Hollingsworth v. Perry}}

====''Perry v. Schwarzenegger''====
After the California Supreme Court upheld the voter initiative, a suit, ''[[Perry v. Schwarzenegger]]'' (later ''Hollingsworth v. Perry''), was filed in a [[United States District Court for the Northern District of California|Federal District Court]] in San Francisco. On August 4, 2010, U.S. District Chief Judge [[Vaughn Walker]] overturned Proposition 8, stating it is "...unconstitutional under the [[Due Process Clause]] because no compelling state interest justifies denying same-sex couples the fundamental right to marry."<ref>{{cite web|title=Perry v Schwarzeneggar (pg 113–114)|url=https://www.scribd.com/goodasyou/d/35374462-California-Prop-8-Ruling-August-2010|access-date=February 8, 2012|archive-date=February 10, 2012|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120210133548/http://www.scribd.com/goodasyou/d/35374462-California-Prop-8-Ruling-August-2010}}</ref> The court also determined that "Proposition 8 violated the [[Equal Protection Clause]] because there is no rational basis for limiting the designation of 'marriage' to opposite-sex couples."<ref>{{cite web|title=Perry v Schwarzeneggar (pp. 119–122)|url=https://www.scribd.com/goodasyou/d/35374462-California-Prop-8-Ruling-August-2010|access-date=February 8, 2012|archive-date=February 10, 2012|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120210133548/http://www.scribd.com/goodasyou/d/35374462-California-Prop-8-Ruling-August-2010}}</ref> The court also [[stay of execution|stayed]] the ruling; the voter initiative was to remain in effect pending appeal.<ref name="SFChron strikes down" /> On August 12, Walker announced his decision to lift the [[stay of execution|stay]] (which would have allowed same-sex marriages to be performed) {{as of|2010|August|18|lc=y|df=US}}.<ref>{{cite news|title=Judge Sets End to Ban on Gay Marriage in California|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/13/us/13prop.html|work=[[The New York Times]]|access-date=August 12, 2010 | first=Jesse | last=McKinley | date=August 12, 2010}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=Final Stay Order|url=https://www.scribd.com/doc/35799834/Final-Stay-Order?tsp=1|publisher=scribd.com|access-date=August 12, 2010}}</ref>
However, on August 16, 2010, the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit]] indefinitely extended the District Court's stay, stopping new same-sex marriages in the state of California pending appeal. It also scheduled an accelerated time table for hearing an appeal of Walker's ruling.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/08/17/2984912.htm?section=world|title=California gay marriages on hold again|last=((Reuters))|date=August 17, 2010|publisher=Australian Broadcasting Corporation|access-date=August 17, 2010}}</ref>

====''Perry v. Brown'' (on appeal)====
As the State of California chose not to appeal the ruling, an appeal was sought by two parties—the initiative proponents, and Imperial County (via its deputy clerk). The [[United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit|Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals]] considered the question of [[standing (law)|standing]] first. On January 4, 2011, the Ninth Circuit ruled that [[Imperial County, California|Imperial County]] did not have [[Standing (law)|standing]] to intervene in the lawsuit (by now called ''Perry v. Brown'')—the formal reason being the county's appeal had been "untimely", but also that the appellant was the county's deputy clerk, and precedent existed in other cases that a deputy clerk could not 'represent' a county.

To address the question whether the initiative proponents had particularized standing (that is, standing either via personal interest, or standing to represent the State's interest), the Ninth Circuit [[Certified question|certified a question]] to the [[California Supreme Court]] on January 4, 2011, asking that court to rule whether, under the California Constitution or otherwise under California law, non-governmental proponents of an [[Initiatives and referendums in the United States|initiative]] have standing to appeal when the State is no longer willing to defend it.<ref>{{cite web|last=Wisckol |first=Martin |url=http://www.ocregister.com/news/gay-282710-court-marriage.html |title=Prop. 8 gay marriage ruling hits detour |publisher=Ocregister.com |date=January 4, 2011 |access-date=October 31, 2011}}</ref> On February 16, 2011, the California Supreme Court unanimously agreed to address the Ninth Circuit's request.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://us.cnn.com/2011/US/02/16/california.proposition.8/ |title=California Supreme Court to decide issue in same-sex marriage ban case |work=CNN|date=February 16, 2011 |access-date=February 16, 2011}}</ref> The court set an expedited schedule for the [[Hearing (law)|hearing]]<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2011-feb-17-la-me-proposition8-20110217-story.html |title=California Supreme Court reenters Proposition 8 fray |first=Maura |last=Dolan |work=Los Angeles Times |date=February 17, 2011 |access-date=February 27, 2011}}</ref> and heard [[Oral argument in the United States|oral arguments]] on September 6, 2011.<ref>{{cite web |date=September 7, 2011 |title=Yesterday's Hearing On Standing In The Prop 8 Case: Full Video, Reactions |author=Andy Towle |url=http://www.towleroad.com/2011/09/prop8full.html#ixzz1ewYFwGOB}}</ref> On November 17, 2011, the California Supreme Court issued an [[Advisory opinion#United States|advisory opinion]] that the proponents of Proposition 8 did have [[Standing (law)|standing]], and could defend it.<ref>{{Cite news |author=Ariane de Vogue |date=November 17, 2011 |title=Prop 8: California Supreme Court Rules Sponsors Can Continue Case |url=https://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/11/prop-8-california-supreme-court-rules-sponsors-can-continue-case/ |work=ABC News}}</ref><ref>{{cite court |date=11/17/11 |litigants=Perry v Brown |court=California Supreme Court |url=http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S189476.PDF}}</ref>

=====Ninth Circuit ruling=====
[[File:Seal of the United States Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit.svg|thumb|right|200px|Seal of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit]]
On February 7, 2012, a [[Judicial panel|three-judge panel]] on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a 2–1 [[majority opinion]] affirming the judgment in ''[[Perry v. Schwarzenegger]]'', which declared Proposition 8 unconstitutional, saying it violated the [[Equal Protection Clause]]. The opinion, written by [[Stephen Reinhardt|Judge Stephen Reinhardt]] and joined by [[Michael Daly Hawkins|Judge Michael Hawkins]], states that Proposition 8 did nothing more than lessen the status and dignity of gays and lesbians, and classify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples.<ref>{{cite web|title=Perry v Brown (pg 5)|url=https://www.scribd.com/doc/80680002/10-16696-398-Decision|access-date=February 8, 2012}}</ref> The court found that the people of California, by using their initiative power to target a [[minority group]] and withdraw the right to marry they once possessed under the [[California State Constitution]], violated the federal Constitution.<ref>{{cite web|title=Perry v Brown (pg 79–80)|url=https://www.scribd.com/doc/80680002/10-16696-398-Decision|access-date=February 8, 2012}}</ref>

The court concluded that the trial court had correctly found Proposition 8 to have no purpose other than to impose the majority's private [[disapproval voting|disapproval]] of gays, lesbians, and their relationships through the [[public law]], and to take away from them the designation of [[civil marriage|marriage]] and its recognized societal status.<ref>{{cite web|title=Perry v Brown (pg 77)|url=https://www.scribd.com/doc/80680002/10-16696-398-Decision|access-date=February 8, 2012}}</ref> The [[Perry v. Brown#Findings of fact|findings of fact]] and [[expert witness]] testimony in [[trial court|District Court]] played an important role in this appellate decision, emphasizing that it is unreasonable to believe Proposition 8 was enacted to: promote [[childrearing]] by biological parents, encourage procreation, be cautious in [[social change]], protect [[freedom of religion|religious liberty]], or control children's education.<ref>{{cite web|title=Perry v Brown (pg 69)|url=https://www.scribd.com/doc/80680002/10-16696-398-Decision|access-date=February 8, 2012}}</ref> The court declared that it is "implausible to think that denying two men or two women the right to call themselves married could somehow bolster the stability of families headed by one man and one woman".<ref>{{cite web|title=Perry v Brown (pg 63)|url=https://www.scribd.com/doc/80680002/10-16696-398-Decision|access-date=February 8, 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |title=Court: Calif. gay-marriage ban unconstitutional |agency=CBS/AP |work=[[CBS News]] |date=February 7, 2012 |url= https://www.cbsnews.com/news/court-calif-gay-marriage-ban-unconstitutional/ |access-date=February 8, 2012}}</ref>

The dissenting judge, [[N. Randy Smith|Judge N. Randy Smith]], noted in his dissent that states do legitimately prohibit sexual relationships condemned by society such as [[incest]], [[bigamy]], and [[bestiality]], and impose age limits for marriage without violating constitutional rights.<ref name="LATsmithdissent">{{cite news|url=http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/02/gay-marriage-divide-evident-even-among-judges-in-proposition-8-case.html |title=Dissenting Prop. 8 judge says 'optimal partnership' is man, woman |publisher=Latimesblogs.latimes.com |date=2012-02-07 |access-date=2013-12-03}}</ref> He stated that "gays and lesbians are not a suspect or quasi-suspect class" and are thus not entitled to the courts' increased scrutiny of laws that affect them.<ref name="LATsmithdissent" /> He wrote, "The family structure of two committed biological parents—one man and one woman—is the optimal partnership for raising children." He also said that governments have a legitimate interest in "a responsible procreation theory, justifying the inducement of marital recognition only for opposite-sex couples" because only they can have children.<ref name="LATsmithdissent" /> He urged [[judicial restraint]], that the justices should refrain from striking down Proposition 8.<ref>{{cite news|last=Jamison |first=Peter |url=http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2012/02/prop_8_appeals_dissent_smith.php |title=Prop. 8 Appeals Court Ruling: Inside the Dissenting Opinion |publisher=Blogs.sfweekly.com |date=2012-02-07 |access-date=2013-12-03}}</ref>

====={{lang|fr|En banc}} review denied=====
On February 21, 2012, proponents requested to have to the case reviewed {{lang|fr|[[en banc]]}} by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.<ref name="proponentsEnBanc">{{cite news|title=Prop. 8 backers seek full review by appeals court|url=https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2012-feb-22-la-me-prop8-appeal-20120222-story.html|access-date=February 29, 2012|newspaper=Los Angeles Times|date=February 22, 2012|first=Maura|last=Dolan}}</ref> If granted, {{lang|fr|en banc}} review could have taken a year or more, which would have delayed possible U.S. Supreme Court review.<ref name="proponentsEnBanc" /> Pending the appeal, a [[stay of execution|stay]] was continued, barring any marriages from taking place.<ref name="guardian120207">{{cite news |last=McVeigh |first=Karen |title=Prop 8: California gay marriage ban struck down by federal appeals court |work=The Guardian |date=February 7, 2012 |url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/feb/07/prop-8-california-gay-marriage-ban-struck-down |access-date=February 8, 2012 |location=London}}</ref> On June 5, 2012, the full Ninth Circuit refused to rehear the case; the stay would remain in place pending final action by the Supreme Court.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_20786293/proposition-8-case-headed-u-s-supreme-court |title=California's Proposition 8 case headed to U.S. Supreme Court |work=Mercurynews.com |access-date=November 15, 2012|date=2012-06-05 }}</ref>

The Ninth Court's ruling was subsequently vacated (withdrawn) although it affirmed the district court ruling, since the Supreme Court later determined that the proponents of Proposition 8 had not had [[standing (law)|standing]] to appeal the district court's ruling.

====''Hollingsworth v. Perry'' (U.S. Supreme Court)====
The proposition's proponents filed a petition for [[certiorari]] with the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] on July 30, 2012, requesting that the Supreme Court review the case.<ref>{{cite web |author=Denniston, Lyle |title="Proposition 8" defenders' appeal filed (FINAL UPDATE) |url=http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/07/proposition-8-appeal-filed/ |publisher=[[SCOTUSblog]] |date=July 31, 2012 |access-date=August 3, 2012}}</ref> Briefs in opposition both from the individual respondents and from the City and County of San Francisco were filed August 24, and the petitioners replied on September 4.<ref name="SCOTUS_docket_12-144">''Hollingsworth v. Perry'', no. 12-144, ([https://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/12-144.htm docket]). Retrieved September 7, 2012.</ref> On December 7, 2012, the Supreme Court granted the proponents' petition for certiorari<ref name="news.yahoo.com">{{cite news|author=The Ticket |url=https://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/supreme-court-hear-gay-marriage-cases-201555862.html |title=Supreme Court will hear two gay marriage cases &#124; The Ticket |publisher=[[Yahoo! News]] |date=2012-12-07 |access-date=2013-11-01}}</ref> and asked to be briefed for arguments concerning the petitioners' Article III [[standing (law)|standing]],<ref>[https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/120712zr_3f14.pdf supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders] (access date: 2013-11-01)</ref> amid considerable anticipation of a finding of a lack of justiciability in order to avoid a holding on the merits.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.scotusblog.com/?p=157896 |title=Understanding standing: The Court's Article III questions in the same-sex marriage cases (I) |publisher=SCOTUSblog |date=2013-01-17 |access-date=2013-11-01}}</ref> Oral arguments were heard on March 26, 2013.<ref name="oral" />

Parties who lodged [[amicus brief]]s with the court included: Judge Georg Ress and the Marriage Law Foundation; [[William Eskridge|William N. Eskridge Jr.]], ''et al''.; the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence; the [[Public Advocate of the United States]], ''et al''.; the [[National Association of Evangelicals]], ''et al''.; the [[American Civil Rights Union]]; [[Judicial Watch]], Inc., ''et al''.; the [[Eagle Forum]] Education & Legal Defense Fund, Inc.; the [[Foundation for Moral Law]]; and the state of [[Indiana]], ''et al''.<ref name="SCOTUS_docket_12-144" />

The Supreme Court issued a 5–4 decision on June 26, 2013.<ref name="sctruling">{{cite news|last=Clarke|first=Rachel|url=http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2013/06/26/supreme-court/?hpt=hp_t1|title=Supreme Court strikes down part of DOMA, dismisses Prop. 8 appeal|date=June 26, 2013|access-date=June 26, 2013|work=CNN|archive-date=June 26, 2013|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130626155758/http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2013/06/26/supreme-court/?hpt=hp_t1|url-status=dead}}</ref> [[Chief Justice of the United States|Chief Justice]] [[John Roberts|Roberts]] wrote for the majority, and was joined by [[Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States|Justices]] [[Antonin Scalia|Scalia]], [[Ruth Bader Ginsburg|Ginsburg]], [[Stephen Breyer|Breyer]], and [[Elena Kagan|Kagan]].<ref name="sctruling" /> Justices [[Anthony Kennedy|Kennedy]], [[Clarence Thomas|Thomas]], [[Samuel Alito|Alito]], and [[Sonia Sotomayor|Sotomayor]] were in the minority.<ref>{{cite magazine|url=https://theweek.com/article/index/246191/strange-bedfellows-the-rationale-of-the-prop-8-dissenters |title=Strange bedfellows: The rationale of the Prop 8 dissenters |magazine=The Week |date=2013-06-26 |access-date=2013-11-01}}</ref> The Court found the proponents did not have standing to appeal in federal court. To have standing, they "must have suffered an injury in fact, thus giving [them] a sufficiently concrete interest in the outcome of the issue in dispute".<ref name="nytbetweenlines" /> Because no injury had been shown, the appeal to the Ninth Circuit should have been dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. (This only applied to the Ninth Circuit and Supreme Court cases.) The Court returned the case to the Ninth Circuit with instructions to dismiss the appeal. This left the district court's ruling overturning Proposition 8 as the final ruling in the case. Because the appeal was decided on the question of standing, the Supreme Court did not examine nor rule on whether in their view Proposition 8 had violated the U.S. Constitution.

Justice [[Anthony Kennedy|Kennedy]], writing for the minority, said the views of the California Supreme Court on the proponents' standing should have been respected,<ref name="nytbetweenlines" /> because "the basic premise of the initiative process [and] the essence of democracy is that the right to make law rests in the people and flows to the government, not the other way around".<ref name="scopinion" />{{rp|13}}

=== Aftermath ===
[[File:Kristin Perry and Sandra Stier, San Francisco Pride 2013.jpg|thumb|alt=Two women sitting on the top of the back seat of an open-top automobile waving to a crowd.|Plaintiffs Perry and Stier at the June 30, 2013, Pride Parade in San Francisco after their marriage]]<!--<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.ksbw.com/news/politics/live-coverage-prop-8-struck-down-by-supreme-court/-/2124/20722962/-/et9v39z/-/index.html#ixzz2XL5pPMdU|title=Local Central Coast Breaking News and Live Alerts – KSBW Action News 8|website=KSBW}}</ref>-->
On June 28, 2013, the Ninth Circuit lifted its stay of the district court's ruling, enabling same-sex marriages to resume;<ref name="latimes.com" /> minutes afterward, plaintiffs Perry and Stier became the first couple in California to legally wed under state law since the enactment of Proposition 8 in 2008, doing so at San Francisco City Hall at 4:45 PDT, with California's Attorney General [[Kamala Harris]] officiating at the ceremony.<ref>{{cite news |title=Same-sex marriages resume in Calif.: San Francisco plaintiffs in Prop. 8 ruling are first couple to wed after appellate action. |last1=Winter |first1=Michael |url=https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/06/28/california-gay-marriage/2474109/ |newspaper=USA Today |date=June 28, 2013 |access-date=June 28, 2013}}</ref>

There were two legal challenges made to the implementation of the ruling, both subsequently denied:

'''Federal court legal challenge to removal of stay'''
{{block indent|On June 29, 2013, the proponents of Proposition 8 filed an emergency motion with the U.S. Supreme Court to vacate the Ninth Circuit's lifting of its stay, claiming it had been "premature".<ref name="lifting of stay">[http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/06/emergency-stay-of-california-same-sex-marriages-sought "Emergency stay of California same-sex marriages sought"], SCOTUSblog, June 29, 2013</ref> The next day, June 30, 2013, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, responsible for overseeing the Ninth Circuit, denied the motion without comment.<ref>[http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/06/new-marriage-challenge-fails "New gay marriage challenge fails"], SCOTUSblog, June 30, 2013.</ref>}}
'''State court legal challenges to statewide implementation of ruling'''
{{block indent|Even before the Ninth Circuit lifted its stay, Proposition 8 proponents had expressed the intent to fight on, by asserting that the ruling only applies to the persons or counties involved and would be unlawful for other couples or counties to comply with it.<ref name="LA Times 6-27">[https://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-prop8-supreme-court-20130626,0,4307010.story Goodbye and good riddance to Prop. 8]—''Los Angeles Times'', editorial, June 27, 2013</ref>

Two petitions to this effect were filed with the California Supreme Court, by proponents (''Hollingsworth v. O'Connell and Brown'', July 12, 2013) and—against county policy—by a [[San Diego]] County Clerk (''Dronenburg'', July 19, 2013: dropped August 2 as duplicative). The proponents' petition challenged the state and county clerk responses to the ruling in ''Perry'', asserting that, in their view, only two counties were affected by the ruling and other counties had no legal capacity to discretionally do likewise; that the plaintiffs, not representing a [[class action|class]], had their relief while others who were not plaintiffs had no change to their position within the law; and that county clerks were not in fact covered by the ruling and were therefore bound to comply with the law as it stood.

This position was rejected by California's governor, who on legal advice<ref name="sfgate 07-12">[http://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Prop-8-backers-ask-court-to-stop-weddings-4662269.php Prop. 8 backers ask court to stop weddings] SFGate, 2013-07-12, by Bob Egelko.</ref> ordered the change to license issuance, according to the ruling.<ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Same-sex-marriage-foes-file-suit-in-clerk-s-name-4676171.php Same-sex marriage foes file suit in clerk's name]—SFGate 2013-07-19, by Bob Egelko.</ref> California's Attorney General [[Kamala Harris]] noted that "state officials are obligated to govern marriage equally in all counties and that [United States District Court for the Northern District of California Chief Judge Vaughn] Walker's ruling specifically covers those officials."<ref name="LA Times 6-27" /> [[San Francisco]]'s city attorney stated that it was "the most basic concepts of American law ... that a state court will not overrule the federal judiciary".<ref name="sfgate 07-12" /> Twenty-four [[County Clerk]]s stated, through their lawyer, that their role was "ultimately state supervised" and it would be unfeasible to have a "patchwork" of different marriage criteria varying between the counties of a single state.<ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/lgbt/article/24-Calif-county-clerks-back-same-sex-marriages-4680582.php 24 Calif. county clerks back same-sex marriages]—''SFGate'', 2013-07-22, by Bob Egelko.</ref>

On July 15, the California Supreme Court unanimously declined the request to order an immediate halt to same-sex marriages in the state pending a decision on the petition. The court requested arguments from the parties on the points raised in their petition.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-prop-8-20130716,0,3411024.story |title=California Supreme Court rejects bid to halt same-sex marriages |work=Los Angeles Times |first=Maura |last=Dolan |date=July 15, 2013 |access-date=July 17, 2013}}</ref> On August 14, 2013, the California Supreme Court unanimously rejected the challenge by Proposition 8 proponents.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-california-supreme-court-prop-8-20130814,0,1311803.story| newspaper=Los Angeles Times |date=August 14, 2013 |title=California Supreme Court rejects bid to revive Prop. 8|first=Maura|last=Dolan}}</ref>}}

==Repeal of Proposition 8==

=== 2009-2022 ===
On April 30, 2009, the members of 'Yes! on Equality' submitted a ballot initiative dubbed "California Marriage Equality Act" to the [[California Attorney General|Attorney General]]'s office, requesting a title and summary. The text of the ballot would repeal Article I; Section 7.5 of the Californian Constitution as well as clarifying that no school curriculum will be changed and no [[clergy]] will be forced to perform any "service or duty incongruent with their faith". Yes! on Equality had until August 17, 2009, to gather 694,354 signatures in order to qualify for the [[List of California ballot propositions 2010–2019#June 2010|June 2010 ballot]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/elections_j.htm|title=2009 Ballot Measure Update|publisher=[[California Secretary of State]]|access-date=2009-06-18|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080605022341/http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/elections_j.htm|archive-date=2008-06-05}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://ag.ca.gov/cms_attachments/initiatives/pdfs/i808_initiative_09-0011.pdf|title=California Marriage Equality Act|publisher=[[California Secretary of State]]|date=2009-05-30|access-date=2009-06-18|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090710182402/http://ag.ca.gov/cms_attachments/initiatives/pdfs/i808_initiative_09-0011.pdf|archive-date=2009-07-10}}</ref> A petition for initiative for the [[List of California ballot propositions 2010–2019#November 2010|November 2010 ballot]] also failed to obtain enough signatures.<ref>{{cite news| url=https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE63B5N620100412 | title=Gay marriage fails to get on California ballot | first=Peter | last=Henderson | date=2010-04-12 | work=Reuters}}</ref><ref>{{cite news| url=https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2010-apr-13-la-me-gay-marriage13-2010apr13-story.html | title=Prop. 8 repeal fails to qualify for November ballot | first=Maura | last=Dolan | work=Los Angeles Times | date=2010-04-13}}</ref>

Several LGBTQ groups of color (including API Equality-LA, HONOR PAC, and the Jordan/Rustin Coalition) published a statement "Prepare to Prevail,"<ref>{{cite web|url = https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://www.preparetoprevail.com/pdfs/Prepare_To_Prevail_FINAL.pdf|title = Prepare to Prevail|publisher = PreparetoPrevail.com|date = July 13, 2009}}</ref> in which they argue that the ballot repeal effort should be delayed until 2012. As of February 2012, the repeal effort was canceled in light of victorious court cases.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/nov05election/detail?blogid=14&entry_id=43580|title=Coalition of LGBT groups: Next year too soon for gay marriage vote in CA|last=Garofoli|first=Joe|date=2009-07-17|newspaper=San Francisco Chronicle|access-date=2009-07-17}}</ref>

=== 2024 repeal ===
{{Main|2024 California Proposition 3}}
On February 14, 2023, following comments by [[Clarence Thomas]] in the U.S. Supreme Court decision ''[[Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization]]'' that called for the court to review  ''[[Obergefell v. Hodges]]'', lawmaker [[Evan Low]] introduced ACA-5 into the California legislature.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240ACA5 |title=A resolution to propose to the people of the State of California an amendment to the Constitution of the State, relating to rights.  |author=<!--Not stated--> |date=February 14, 2023 |publisher=California Legislative Information |access-date=February 15, 2023 }}</ref> A [[Legislative referral|legislatively referred]] constitutional amendment repealing the ban on same-sex marriage was proposed for the [[2024 California elections]]; activists stated that 2024 would be the appropriate time for a ballot measure to prevent public competition for attention with [[2022 California Proposition 1]].<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/California-s-LGBTQ-leaders-are-pushing-to-17280666.php |title=California's LGBTQ leaders are pushing to remove zombie same-sex marriage ban from the state Constitution |last=Gardiner |first=Dustin |date=July 5, 2022 |website=San Francisco Chronicle |access-date=November 18, 2022}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-politics-and-policy/california-will-try-enshrine-right-sex-marriage-rcna70556 |title=California will try to enshrine right to same-sex marriage |author=<!--Not stated--> |date=February 14, 2022 |agency=Associated Press |publisher=NBC News |access-date=February 14, 2022}}</ref>

In June 2023, the [[California State Assembly]] passed ACA-5 in a unanimous vote, and the following month another unanimous vote took place in the [[California State Senate]], therefore placing the proposal to repeal Proposition 8 on the ballot in 2024.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://edition.cnn.com/2023/07/14/politics/california-prop-8-repeal/index.html |title=California voters will decide whether to repeal state's Prop 8 same sex marriage ban in 2024 |author=Melissa Alonso |author2=Shania Shelton|date=July 14, 2023 |agency=|work=CNN|access-date=July 16, 2023}}</ref> The measure was approved by over 61% of voters. The text of the Constitution was changed to read: "the right to marry is a fundamental right".<ref>{{cite web|url=https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_3,_Right_to_Marry_and_Repeal_Proposition_8_Amendment_(2024)|title=California Proposition 3, Right to Marry and Repeal Proposition 8 Amendment (2024)|work=Ballotpedia}}</ref>

==See also==
{{Portal|LGBTQ|Conservatism|California}}
* [[2000 California Proposition 22|Proposition 22]]
* [[Briggs Initiative]]
* [[Houston, Texas Proposition 1, 2015|Houston Proposition 1 (2015)]]—a veto referendum which led to the repealing of an ordinance protecting LGBTQ rights.
* [[LGBTQ rights in California]]
* [[List of former U.S. state constitutional amendments banning same-sex unions by type]]
* ''[[Obergefell v. Hodges]]''—a 2015 U.S. Supreme Court case holding that the right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples.
* [[San Francisco 2004 same-sex weddings]]—a prior controversy that sparked ''[[In re Marriage Cases]]'' and led to Proposition 8
* [[SaveCalifornia.com]]
* ''[[United States v. Windsor]]''—a 2013 U.S. Supreme Court case, decided along with ''Hollingsworth v. Perry'', that struck down Section 3 of the [[Defense of Marriage Act]], thereby granting federal benefits to same sex couple who are married under state law
* [[8 (play)|''8'' (or ''8 the Play'')]]—an American play that portrays the closing arguments of ''Perry v. Schwarzenegger'', the federal trial that led to the overturn of Proposition 8

==References==
{{reflist|colwidth=30em}}

==External links==
{{Commons category}}
{{Wikinews category|Proposition 8}}
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20111123014544/http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/TVNews/MSNBC%20TV/Maddow/Blog/2010/07/prop8ruling.pdf The District Court's decision in ''Perry v Schwarzenegger'' (Prop 8 Unconstitutional)]
* [https://www.scribd.com/document/80680002/10-16696-398-Decision The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Decision Affirming ''Perry v Schwarzenegger'' (Prop 8 Unconstitutional)]
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7n8HlxMfx4 Video—Ninth Circuit Appeals Court Trial on the Merits]
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5dIUOCWslU Video—Ninth Circuit Appeals Court Trial on Recusal]
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20081010125329/http://www.protectmarriage.com/ ProtectMarriage.com]: Organizational sponsor of Proposition 8
* [http://www.noonprop8.com/ No On Prop. 8]: Organizational opponent to Proposition 8
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20090430043558/http://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/past/2008/general/title-sum/prop8-title-sum.htm California Official Voter Information Guide on Proposition 8], Title and summary, analysis, arguments and rebuttals, and the text of the proposition.
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20150425203101/http://ag.ca.gov/cms_pdfs/initiatives/i737_07-0068_Initiative.pdf Scan of Initiative] from [[California Attorney General]] website
* [https://www.followthemoney.org/research/institute-reports/the-money-behind-the-2008-same-sex-partnership-ballot-measures The Money Behind the 2008 Same-Sex Partnership Ballot Measures—OpenSecrets]
* [http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?fips=6&year=2008&f=0&off=67&elect=0 Proposition 8 map] a detailed hyper-linked map on David Leips election atlas.
* [http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/hollingsworth-v-perry/ ''Hollingsworth v. Perry''] at [[SCOTUSblog]]
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20130302063628/http://www.sfcityattorney.org/index.aspx?page=501 Amicus briefs filed in ''Hollingsworth v. Perry''] from the [[City Attorney of San Francisco]]

{{U.S. same-sex unions ballot measures}}
{{LGBT in California}}
{{Same-sex marriage in the United States}}
{{CA2008elections}}

[[Category:2008 California Proposition 8| ]]
[[Category:Articles containing video clips]]
[[Category:Initiatives in the United States]]
[[Category:Opposition to same-sex marriage in the United States]]
[[Category:Same-sex marriage ballot measures in the United States]]
[[Category:2008 California ballot propositions|8]]
[[Category:Marriage in California]]