June 18th, 2010
07:52 AM ET
5 years ago

Will Prop 8 ruling have an impact on other states?

ALT TEXT

 Protesters make their case at an anti-Proposition 8 rally in east Los Angeles, California, on May 26, 2009. (PHOTO CREDIT: Getty Images)


Washington (CNN) - While closing arguments have ended in California's Proposition 8 trial - a case that will determine the constitutionality of California's same-sex marriage ban - the outcome may not have an impact on states considering similar legislation.

The reason: State budget crises and the upcoming elections have shifted the focus from social issues to fiscal stability, which will sidetrack same-sex marriage legislation in other states, a policy expert said.

"I have also seen this issue pushed aside since the recession started. States are just so focused on budgets and the shortfalls," said Christine Nelson, a program director at the National Council of State Legislatures. "I had a legislator tell me 'Are you kidding? Our state needs money and job creation. So why in the world would we be tackling that?' "

Nelson, who follows the issue of same-sex marriage, said there's been very little legislative activity this year, which she attributes to a year where most legislators are up for re-election.

"I talked to advocates last fall and I said what are you expecting this session? And they said 'Oh, nothing, it's an election year' - no one's going to touch these issues."

Full story


Filed under: Proposition 8 • Same-sex marriage
soundoff (12 Responses)
  1. Jason B.

    And what's ever stopped any legislature from banning marriages before? Here in KS they'll ignore truly important issues to spend untold hours on stupid crud like that.

    June 18, 2010 08:36 am at 8:36 am |
  2. Jason

    Why can't people just strike a deal and both sides just let this go?

    Who cares about the term marriage? Call it civil unions... call it whatever...

    The biblical influence of the word "marriage" which bleeds into our laws blatantly showing the lack of church and state on the issue is the only thing giving those who oppose gay marriage any legal standing.

    No amount of votes now against it will change the fact that there will always be gay people and in some way or another everyone is going to have to learn to get along and share communities. It's was 80% unpopular when the Supreme Court ruled in favor of interracial marriage.

    June 18, 2010 08:39 am at 8:39 am |
  3. Rick McDaniel

    The US is a total hypocrite, over human rights. The religious right continues to abuse the human rights of those who they disagree with, and the US doesn't even admit that is happening.

    June 18, 2010 08:55 am at 8:55 am |
  4. Liz the First

    Let's hope the impact is that every state finally starts treating ALL its citizens LIKE American Citizens! there is no excuse for the government at any level to practice bigotry against a minority of its citizens. We are not run by a Taliban. this is a free, secular country that has enshrined in its Declaration of Independence and constitution the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness for ALL its citizens. nowhere in either of these sacred documents does it say, 'unless you're gay!' No one on the 'right' has been able to demonstrate real harm to any straight couple if gay couples are allowed to enjoy the same rights, because there is no real harm. it's like saying a gay man owning a Ford truck somehow diminishes a straight man's Ford truck ownership. it pins the needle on the Oh, Puh-leeeeeze! meter.

    June 18, 2010 09:00 am at 9:00 am |
  5. Artie

    Looks like the usual "time on their hands crowd" marching for the in your face fun of it !

    June 18, 2010 09:14 am at 9:14 am |
  6. Greg Pottstown PA

    I am going to laugh when the court upholds the vote they had last year.

    Face it, most people think it is wrong to be gay in the first place. I don't have a problem with a gay person but I don't want my kids to be taught that it is normal.

    All this is about is people wanting to say that they are married and rub it in the faces of those on the religious right.

    June 18, 2010 09:15 am at 9:15 am |
  7. Ferret out the BS

    Marriage is a social / Religous concept which has evolved to incude certain legal responsibilities. There is absolutely no reason it should be only restricted to heterosexual couples. In fact there is no reason the California constitution or any other constitution should address marriage in any way shape or form.

    June 18, 2010 09:24 am at 9:24 am |
  8. Pragmatic

    Note that Mike Huckabee is slamming Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels over comments suggesting the next president should focus exclusively on fiscal problems at the expense of social issues. "Let me be clear…the issue of life and traditional marriage are not bargaining chips nor are they political issues,"

    Translation: jobs are not as important as traditional marriage: A man and a woman – both out of work, if pregnant, should bring that child into the world ... as the GOP votes down extending unemployment benefits – doesn't have a clue about creating jobs ... and is against health care insurance for children ....

    June 18, 2010 09:32 am at 9:32 am |
  9. Bob

    Thank God for the hispanic catholics in California.

    This country was founded on Christian principles. Christian principles means faith in the Bibles of the Christian faiths. Sex between the same sex is a sin, so stated by God.

    Look, if you don't believe in the single God of Abraham that the Muslims, Jews and Christians believe, ok. But, if you do, then you can't have it both ways, because societal norms have changes.

    What happens to you if you espouse same sex partnerships, marriage, etc, if you are a muslim? What is the penalty under the Koran for that sin? Get my point.

    If you want a Godless society, then just so state. However, if you believe in God, same sex relationships have no place.

    It would be good to examine the penalties for this offense in all the countries of the world. So, does this mean that the world is ignorant to the issue and hasn't moved forward.

    June 18, 2010 09:54 am at 9:54 am |
  10. ByStander

    If the legislatures are afraid of taking up this issue in an election year, it is an indication that the issue is against the majority will.

    Either Legislatures are pushing their own agenda or caving-in for a minority with deep pockets.

    June 18, 2010 09:58 am at 9:58 am |
  11. doug

    With the actions of people like Al Gore, Bill Clinton, and Tiger Woods, I really don't think that gays can destroy marriage any more so than straights already have.

    So if you are gay what party do you support? Well do a factual experiment.

    Go to Harlem, South Central LA, or inner city Detroit and Chicago at 11pm on a Friday Night and walk down the street holding your boyfriends hand. Now go that in any red area small town at the same time. Compare your results. :)

    June 18, 2010 09:59 am at 9:59 am |
  12. NVa Native

    Long term this will be of no consequence as discrimination is being eliminated from our society more and more with each generation. It's the reality of evolution. But in the short term the angry old generation which accepts and promotes intolerance and scap-goating is clinging to their fear.

    June 18, 2010 10:35 am at 10:35 am |