• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
Democrats Abroad UK

Democrats Abroad UK

Representing US citizens throughout England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland

  • Voting From Abroad
  • Who We Are
    • Caucuses and Committees
      • Black Caucus
      • Film Committee and Film Nights
      • Get Out The Vote & Voter Registration Committee
      • LGBTQ+ Caucus
      • Policy Network and Resolutions Committee
      • Political Book Club
      • Progressive Democrats Caucus
      • Tax Committee
      • Women’s Caucus
      • Young Democrats
    • Chapters and Regions
      • Cambridge Chapter
      • Oxford Chapter
      • Scotland Chapter
      • Bath, Bristol & The Cotswolds
      • West Midlands
    • Elected Officials
  • Our Events
  • Get Involved
  • Contact Us
  • Visit DA Global ↗
  • Show Search
Hide Search
Home/Committees/Film Committee & Film Nights/Case Against 8 Briefing Notes

Case Against 8 Briefing Notes

Briefing Notes No 39
The Case Against 8
June 23, 201
5

After-screening panel discussion and Q and A with Bob Ravelli, DAUK Vice-Chair and Brandon Perlberg

Case Against 8 offers us a snapshot of one important mo-ment in the history of the struggle for marriage equality for same-sex couples.
Its focus is very specific: to provide an in-depth and be-hind-the scenes record of the legal strategy deployed by the American Foundation for Equal Rights (an organization founded specifically for this purpose) to challenge the constitutionality of the Proposition 8 amendment to the California state constitution.
Playing a central role are the four plaintiffs whose testimonies and reflections make clear the significance of same-sex marriage to their lives and justify its legitimacy as an American civil rights issue.
Two coincidences:
In 2008, on the same day that over sixty percent of Californians voted for Barack Obama as the first African-American President, fifty-two percent supported the anti-same-sex marriage Proposition 8.
On June 28th 2013, the Supreme Court made two important rulings. They ruled that the proponents of Proposition 8 had ‘no standing’ with the result that their appeal against lower courts’ decisions on its unconstitutionality failed. The Court also ruled that the Defence of Marriage Act (DOMA) which restricted federal interpretations of marriage and spouses to heterosexual unions was unconstitutional.
Changing attitudes and complex alliances
In 2001 Pew Research Polling found that Americans op-posed same-sex marriage by 57% to 35%. By 2015, same-sex marriage was supported by a majority of 57% to 39% – a very marked change.
Prior to 2004, no same-sex marriages were performed in any jurisdiction in the USA; now, such marriages are legal in 37 states.
One of the surprising, if not disconcerting, aspects of the Case Against 8 was the role of Ted Olson,

Bush’s former Solicitor General. Once he and liberal Democrat David Boies fought on opposite sides in the Bush v Gore Su-preme Court case over the 2000 election results in Florida. Now they were co-counsels in support of same-sex mar-riage. Support of organizations such as the libertarian Koch-funded Cato Institute also signals the erosion of ‘conservative unity’ on this issue.
The film alludes to the opposition within some of the LGBT community to the strategy deployed: that it was too soon; that mounting a case in federal courts on the grounds chosen could jeopardise progress; that it was ‘detached’ from other LGBT campaigns and activism : and that the role of Olson was problematic.

Some have also argued that the film neglects the historical context, and the moorings in LGBT activism and that it fails to provide a comprehensive portrayal of the scale and types of opposition that LGBT civil rights still face. How-ever, in the cross-examination of the arguments opposing same-sex marriage, the film does dissect the proponents’ ‘evidence’ that same-sex marriage would cause ‘harm’ – whether to marriage as an institution or to children. Some of the most absorbing moments in the film are when opponents are driven to acknowledge that enabling same-sex marriage would strengthen commitments, enhance the lives of children of these partnerships and realize American values.
In fact, the Ninth circuit court ruled that ‘Proposition 8 serves no purpose and has no effect other than to lessen the status and dignity of gays and lesbians in California and officially to reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite sex couples”. and thereby unconstitutional.
We now await the Supreme Court decision on whether state bans of same-sex marriage can remain in place


The information and sources provided as well as the views expressed here reflect
neither the views of DAUK  or the Democratic Party nor their endorsement of, or association with them.

Written by:
elaine
Published on:
September 9, 2020

Categories: Film Committee & Film Nights, Past DAUK Film NightsTags: lgbt rights, same sex marriage

Explore more

  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • Twitter
Donate to Democrats Abroad

Footer

Join Democrats Abroad | Press Enquiries | Privacy Policy
Copyright © 2022 Democrats Abroad UK

We use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences and repeat visits. By clicking “Accept”, you consent to the use of ALL the cookies.
Cookie settingsRead MoreACCEPT
Privacy & Cookies Policy

Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these cookies, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may have an effect on your browsing experience.
Necessary
Always Enabled
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Non-necessary
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.
SAVE & ACCEPT