Let’s say you have not been following the Prop 8 news, this visual timeline from MSN’s Good News Blog, last updated in August, will help you to get up to speed: Proposition 8: A Timeline
If you are interested in hearing the oral argument on Prop 8 that took place recently on December 06, 2010, in the San Francisco, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, C-Span is hosting video of the arguments. Perry v. Schwarzenegger, (Prop. 8 )
NPR has been reporting on Prop 8, and you can read or listen to four recent articles online.
The following article by Karen Grigsby Bates, highlights the attitudes of proponents and opponents of Prop 8, demonstrating how difficult is has been and continues to be for these opposing groups to negotiate. Their value systems are divergent, and in some cases are rooted in religious and cultural beliefs that cannot be countered with logic. This has meant that the tone of the debates and discussions have been infused with emotion, and rarely is there a meeting of the minds.
In Calif., Prop. 8 Debate Tests Limits Of Tolerance by Karen Grigsby Bates
Also from NPR, Ted Olson, Gay Marriage’s Unlikely Legal Warrior by Nina Totenberg
This story presents an interesting perspective on why a Conservative would want marriage to be more inclusive rather than less. In part, we are reminded that only 40 years ago, President Obama’s parents would have been committing a felony if they had gotten married in Virginia.
Beyond these policy issues are the true legal issues involved in this case, issues such as who has standing, and whether anyone who actually does have standing to defend Prop 8, would even want to. These issues are discussed by Richard Gonzales, and you can read or listen online to his two recent NPR articles Expect More Legal Twists In Battle Over Prop. 8 and Legal Standing Among Issues In Proposition 8 Appeal.
Should you want to see what one New York Times writer has to say about Prop. 8, check out this Dec 10 editorial, entitled Civil Rights in California, the author’s opinion is that “The proponents of the discriminatory proposition should be granted standing, and they should lose.”