Last November, California voters by a 52-to-48 percent margin approved a ballot measure adding the following provision to the state constitution: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in California.” This vote ended the right to marry enjoyed by gay and lesbian couples in California and cast a cloud over the legal status of thousands of California marriages. Tomorrow, the Supreme Court of California hears argument about the validity of that vote and the legal status of those marriages.
In 2005, the Executive Council approved a policy statement, “Support for the Full Inclusion and Equal Rights of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender People in the Workplace,” which opposed the so-called Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA), which would recognize only marriages between a man and a woman and deny the benefits of marital status to other couples. As the council pointed out, “We have never amended the Constitution to discriminate against any group of people by denying them rights.” The council also opposed “state counterparts” to the FMA.
California Proposition 8 is a divisive measure of the same order. California law permits the state constitution to be changed in either of two ways. First, an “amendment” may be effected by a voter referendum initiated by either a voter petition—which is how Proposition 8 reached the ballot—or a two-thirds vote of each of the California State Senate and State Assembly. Second, a “revision,” which deals with more substantial or fundamental governmental issues, must be effected by a voter referendum that is placed on the ballot only by a two-thirds vote of both houses of the state legislature.
The California Federation of Labor and many other labor and progressive organizations are urging the state court to hold that a constitutional change of this magnitude—depriving one class of citizens of rights enjoyed by all others—may be made only as a “revision,” with the overwhelming support of the legislature as well as a majority of the people. The AFL-CIO endorses that position and the judicial invalidation of Proposition 8.