Featured Cause
-
End Homelessness
- 2337 Members
- 2166 Actions
- $205 Dollars Raised
End Homelessness

Published October 30, 2008 @ 04:16AM PST
Nearly 60 Californian law professors signed a statement yesterday, blasting the Yes on Proposition 8 campaign for using deceptive and misleading information in trying to peddle their message that same-sex marriage is bad for the state of California. According to the law professors, the Yes on 8 campaign is not only interpreting California law incorrectly, they are using their misguided interpretation for fear-mongering, suggesting that if Prop 8 fails to pass, church leaders will be arrested for speaking out against homosexuality, churches will lose their tax exempt status for refusing to conduct gay weddings, and that children will be subjected to same-sex marriage indoctrination in the classroom.
In layman's terms, the law professors are saying what many have already increasingly realized: the yes on 8 campaign is desperate, and is full of lies.
Per Professor Pam Karlan, a Stanford University law professor:
"As teachers of the law, we feel an obligation to speak out when claims are made about the law that are simply and clearly false."
Karlan and 58 other law professors found that Proposition 8, if it were passed, would unfairly discriminate against gays and lesbians. The professors also assert that California's same-sex marriage ruling, which lies at the heart of Proposition 8, does not force churches to teach or preach anything contradictory to the beliefs they prescribe to. The law professors' statement chides the Yes on 8 campaign for resorting to lies and distortion to sell their claims:
"We recognize that people of integrity can differ in their views of the meaning of marriage. But people who want to take the right to marry away from same-sex couples should not rely on misleading claims about the current state of the law or about what Proposition 8 would do."
After the jump, you can read the entire statement, as well as view the signatories to it. If this statement suggests anything, it suggests that the law is on the side of the No on 8 supporters.
Proposition 8, on the ballot this November, proposes a constitutional amendment that would eliminate the right to marry that same-sex couples in California currently possess. We recognize that people of integrity can differ in their views of the meaning of marriage. But people who want to take the right to marry away from same-sex couples should not rely on misleading claims about the current state of the law or about what Proposition 8 will do. As professors who teach and write about constitutional law, family law, and related subjects, we emphasize the following basic points.
First, Proposition 8 would change existing California law and would require the state to discriminate against gay men and lesbians. Proposition 8 would forbid government officials from according gay men and lesbians a fundamental right they now enjoy and that all other adults in California will continue to enjoy: the right to marry a person of their choice. Just as California’s long ago-repudiated ban on interracial marriage constituted racial discrimination, so too, a ban on same-sex marriage would constitute discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. The ability of same-sex couples to enter into registered domestic partnerships does not eliminate that discrimination. Thus, the claim made by some of Proposition 8’s supporters that the amendment does not discriminate against gay men and lesbians is simply false.
Second, the claim that Proposition 8 is necessary to protect the tax exemptions of churches that refuse to solemnize or recognize marriages between same-sex couples is also false. As the Supreme Court of California made clear in its decision in the Marriage Cases, “affording same-sex couples the opportunity to obtain the designation of marriage will not impinge upon the religious freedom of any religious organization, official, or any other person; no religion will be required to change its religious policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs.” 183 P.2d. 384, 451-52 (2008). That protection for religious views is already written into the California Constitution. Article I, section 4 guarantees “[f]ree exercise and enjoyment of religion without discrimination or preference,” and that is true even if a religion forbids conduct that the state permits. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution also already protects a religion’s decisions about whether to solemnize and recognize particular marriages. So, for example, a religion is free to treat only marriages between members of its faith as valid – or even to excommunicate members who marry outside the faith – even though the state permits marriages between individuals regardless of their religious identity and cannot punish individuals’ failure to follow religious commands. The same protections clearly apply in the case of same-sex marriages. No church will be required to perform or to recognize such marriages. No church’s tax-exempt status will be affected by its decisions about whether to solemnize marriages between same-sex couples. Current law affects only the civil institution of marriage.
Third, the claim that Proposition 8 is necessary to prevent public schools from teaching issues relating to marriage by same-sex couples to children whose parents oppose that instruction is false. Existing California law already provides parents with an absolute right to review all materials provided as part of a school’s comprehensive sexual health education program and to have their children excused from participation. Cal. Educ. Code § 51240; see also Citizens for Parental Rights v. San Mateo County Bd. of Educ., 124 Cal. Rptr. 68, 80-82 (Cal. Ct. App. 1st App. Dist. 1975) (discussing the prior version of this longstanding policy). Nothing about Proposition 8 will change this rule, and Proposition 8 adds nothing to the protection of parental rights already provided by law.
Kathryn Abrams
Herma Hill Kay Distinguished Professor of Law
UC-Berkeley School of Law
John M. Adler
Professor of Law
University of San Francisco School of Law
Scott Altman
Vice Dean and Virginia S. and Fred H. Bice Professor of Law
University of Southern California Gould School of Law
Diane Marie Amann
Professor of Law
University of California, Davis School of Law
Vikram Amar
Associate Dean for Academic Affairs and Professor of Law
University of California, Davis, School of Law
Angelo N. Ancheta
Assistant Professor of Law
Santa Clara University School of Law
R. Richard Banks
Jackson Eli Reynolds Professor of Law
Stanford Law School
Ash Bhagwat
Professor of Law
University of California, Hastings College of the Law
Grace Ganz Blumberg
Professor of Law
UCLA School of Law
Paul Brest
Dean Emeritus
Stanford Law School
Rebecca Brown
Newton Professor of Constitutional Law
USC Gould School of Law
Kim Buchanan
Assistant Professor
University of Southern California Gould School of Law
Alan Brownstein
Professor of Law
Boochever and Bird Chair for the Study and Teaching of Freedom and Equality
UC Davis School of Law
Patricia A. Cain
Inez Mabie Distinguished Professor of Law
Santa Clara University
Erwin Chemerinsky
Founding Dean
University of California, Irvine School of Law
Eric C. Christiansen
Associate Professor of Law
Academic Co-Director, Honors Lawyering Program
Co-Director, GGU-Paris Nanterre Comparative Law Program
Golden Gate University School of Law
William Cohen
C. Wendell and Edith M. Carlsmith Professor, Emeritus
Stanford Law School
Jan C. Costello
Professor of Law
Loyola Law School - Loyola Marymount University
David B. Cruz
Professor of Law
University of Southern California Gould School of Law
Mary L. Dudziak
Judge Edward J. and Ruey L. Guirado Professor of Law, History and Political Science
University of Southern California Law School
David L. Faigman
John F. Digardi Distinguished Professor of Law
University of California, Hastings College of the Law
Deborah L. Forman
Professor of Law
J. Allan Cook & Mary Schalling Cook Children's Law Scholar
Whittier Law School
Philip Frickey
Alexander F. and May T. Morrison Professor of Law
UC Berkeley School of Law
Thomas C. Grey
Nelson Bowman Sweitzer and Marie B. Sweitzer Professor of Law, Emeritus
Stanford Law School
Pratheepan Gulasekaram
Assistant Professor
Santa Clara University School of Law
Elizabeth L. Hillman
Professor of Law
University of California Hastings College of Law
Joan Heifetz Hollinger
Professor and Lecturer-in-Residence in Family Law
University of California, Berkeley
Marina Hsieh
Assistant Dean for Academic & Professional Development
Santa Clara University Law School
Leslie Gielow Jacobs
Director, Capital Center for Government Law & Policy and Professor of Law
Pacific McGeorge School of Law
Courtney G. Joslin
Acting Professor of Law
UC Davis School of Law, King Hall
Pamela S. Karlan
Kenneth and Harle Montgomery Professor of Public Interest Law
Stanford Law School
Kenneth L. Karst
David G. Price and Dallas P. Price Professor of Law Emeritus
UCLA School of Law
Herma Hill Kay
Barbara Nachtrieb Armstrong Professor of Law
University of California, Berkeley
Ellen S. Kreitzberg
Professor of Law
Santa Clara University School of Law
Brian K. Landsberg
Distinguished Professor and Scholar
Pacific McGeorge School of Law
Carlton F.W. Larson
Acting Professor of Law
UC Davis School of Law
Lawrence Lessig
C. Wendell and Edith M. Carlsmith Professor of Law
Stanford Law School
Lawrence C. Levine
Professor of Law
Pacific McGeorge School of Law
Goodwin Liu
Associate Dean and Professor of Law
UC Berkeley School of Law
Jean C. Love
John A. and Elizabeth H. Sutro Professor of Law
Santa Clara University School of Law
Maya Manian
Associate Professor
University of San Francisco School of Law
Lawrence C. Marshall
Associate Dean for Public Service and Clinical Education & David & Stephanie Mills Director of Clinical Education
Stanford Law School
Jenny S. Martinez
Associate Professor of Law and Justin M. Roach, Jr. Faculty Scholar
Stanford Law School
John E.B. Myers
Distinguished Professor and Scholar
University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law
Julie Nice
Visiting Professor of Law
University of San Francisco School of Law
Deborah L. Rhode
McFarland Professor of Law
Stanford Law School
Camille Gear Rich
Assistant Professor of Law
USC Gould School of Law
Margaret M. Russell
Professor
Santa Clara University School of Law
Jane S. Schacter
William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Law
Stanford Law School
Darien Shanske
Associate Professor
University of California Hastings College of the Law
John Cary Sims
Professor of Law
Pacific McGeorge School of Law
Edward Steinman
Professor of Law
Santa Clara University School of Law
Kathleen M. Sullivan
Stanley Morrison Professor of Law and Former Dean
Stanford Law School
Jonathan D. Varat
Professor of Law
University of California, Los Angeles School of Law
Michael S. Wald
Jackson Eli Reynolds Professor of Law, Emeritus
Stanford Law School
Kelly Weisberg
Professor of Law
University of California, Hastings College of the Law
Lois A. Weithorn
Professor of Law
University of California, Hastings College of the Law
University of California
Stephanie M. Wildman
Professor of Law and Director, Center for Social Justice and Public Service
Santa Clara University School of Law
Michael Zamperini
Professor of Law
Golden Gate University School of Law
Comments on Change.org are meant for further exploration and evaluation of the ideas covered in the posts. To that end, we welcome constructive comments. However, we reserve the right to delete comments that are offensive, abusive, or off-topic; that contain ad hominem attacks; or that are designed to subvert or hijack comment threads rather than contribute to them. Repeat offenders may be permanently removed from the site at our discretion.
This user's Profile page is not public. They have restricted it to only their friends.
You must create a Change.org account to complete this action.
If you already have an account click here.

The Case Foundation, a partner of Change.org, is running a campaign called "Change Begins With Me," which
calls on citizens across the country to get involved by answering the question: how will YOU commit to
bringing about change in your neighborhood, your community or your nation?
The winner will receive 2 tickets to the Presidential Inauguration and the Hawaii Inaugural Ball as well
as flight and hotel accommodations in Washington, DC.
No idea is too big or too small. Everyone has a role to play.
To enter the competition, in 250 characters or less, complete this phrase: