Prop 8 Court Victory: A Reproductive Justice Win Too


Today, LGBT rights supporters are celebrating a well-deserved victory after Judge Vaughn Walker struck down the discriminatory Proposition 8 ballot initiative that tried to ban gay marriage in California. But Reproductive Justice advocates are celebrating the Perry v. Schwarzenegger ruling right alongside them, and with good reason.

As Shira Saperstein has written:

Reproductive rights are about far more than abortion—they also encompass contraception, adoption, and intimate relationships, including marriage. The ability to manage our fertility through contraception and, when necessary, abortion, enables us to plan our families and to determine whether, when, and with whom to have children. Adoption, too, allows caring adults to become parents and form loving families. And marriage provides legal and social benefits that make it easier to care for one another and to raise children with the security and resources they need to thrive.

These rights are indivisible, and defending them comes not only from a concern for women or for the GLBT community. Reproductive rights are about nothing less than the ability to chart one’s own course in life—to make decisions about love, sex, and family without government interference or discrimination. That ability is central to core American values of freedom, equality, and fairness. It is time for progressives to join together in support of a complete and comprehensive reproductive rights agenda that advances liberty and justice for all.

Core values of reproductive justice include, among others, the right to make reproductive and sexual decisions, freedom from rigid gender norms, gender equity in all areas of life, and respect for parenting regardless of one’s characteristics.

In his opinion, Judge Vaughn touches on many of these tenets. He makes it clear that decisions about marriage, sex, and procreation may be interrelated but are in no way a precondition for one another:

The state respects an individual’s choice to build a family with another and protects the relationship because it is so central a part of an individual’s life.  See Bowers v Hardwick, 478 US 186, 204-205 (1986) (Blackmun, J, dissenting).

Never has the state inquired into procreative capacity or intent before issuing a marriage license; indeed, a marriage license is more than a license to have procreative sexual intercourse. FF 21. “[I]t would demean a married couple were it to be said marriage is simply about the right to have sexual intercourse.” Lawrence, 539 US at 567. The Supreme Court recognizes that, wholly apart from procreation, choice and privacy play a pivotal role in the marital relationship. See Griswold, 381 US at 485-486. (emphasis added).

He eloquently explains that even though marriage started as a patriarchal institution based on rigid gender roles, it has evolved to recognize equality between the sexes without losing its essence of two people choosing each other to build a life together:

The marital bargain in California (along with other states) traditionally required that a woman’s legal and economic identity be subsumed by her husband’s upon marriage under the doctrine of coverture; this once-unquestioned aspect of marriage now is regarded as antithetical to the notion of marriage as a union of equals. FF 26-27, 32. As states moved to recognize the equality of the sexes, they eliminated laws and practices like coverture that had made gender a proxy for a spouse’s role within a marriage. FF 26-27, 32.

Marriage was thus transformed from a male-dominated institution into an institution recognizing men and women as equals. Id. Yet, individuals retained the right to marry; that right did not become different simply because the institution of marriage became compatible with gender equality…

The evidence shows that the movement of marriage away from a gendered institution and toward an institution free from state-mandated gender roles reflects an evolution in the understanding of gender rather than a change in marriage. The evidence did not show any historical purpose for excluding same-sex couples from marriage, as states have never required spouses to have an ability or willingness to procreate in order to marry. FF 21. Rather, the exclusion exists as an artifact of a time when the genders were seen as having distinct roles in society and in marriage. That time has passed.

The right to marry has been historically and remains the right to choose a spouse and, with mutual consent, join together and form a household. FF 19-20, 34-35. Race and gender restrictions shaped marriage during eras of race and gender inequality, but such restrictions were never part of the historical core of the institution of marriage. FF 33. Today, gender is not relevant to the state in determining spouses’ obligations to each other and to their dependents. Relative gender composition aside, same-sex couples are situated identically to opposite-sex couples in terms of their ability to perform the rights and obligations of marriage under California law. FF 48. Gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage; marriage under law is a union of equals.(emphasis added)

He also recognizes the relationship between sex discrimination and sexual orientation discrimination:

[S]ex and sexual orientation are necessarily interrelated, as an individual’s choice of romantic or intimate partner based on sex is a large part of what defines an individual’s sexual orientation. See FF 42-43. Sexual orientation discrimination is thus a phenomenon distinct from, but related to, sex discrimination.

Finally, Vaughn concludes that the potential for good parenting knows no bounds.

The evidence does not support a finding that California has an interest in preferring opposite-sex parents over same-sex parents. Indeed, the evidence shows beyond any doubt that parents’ genders are irrelevant to children’s developmental outcomes….Proposition 8 makes it less likely that California children will be raised in stable households….the evidence shows Proposition 8 disadvantages families and their children.

As this opinion shows in so many ways, reproductive and sexual rights are integrally and intimately linked. When one is undermined so is the other. But when one is affirmed, the victory is doubly sweet.

Like this story? Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

To schedule an interview with contact director of communications Rachel Perrone at rachel@rhrealitycheck.org.

Follow Jessica Arons on twitter: @jrarons

  • arekushieru

    HELLS, yeah, Judge Vaughn Walker!  You got it SPOT on!  Kudos to you.  At least one Judge has their head on straight!  :)

  • ack

    This is an amazing time to be an American.

  • saltyc

    At first I didn’t see the connection but now it’s clear. The state, via majority ballot, cannot impose private decisions on individuals without substantial social justification. In other words, when you are being a nosy busybody in order to limit the shape of someone’s chosen life, step back. It’s not your business to dictate what kinds of relationships people have. That totally has legal relevance to abortion.

  • invalid-0

    How does everybody feel about this ruling’s chances of survival if it gets to the Supreme Court?

  • cpcwatcher

    Not good. I don’t think the Supreme Court would be as gung-ho about upholding marriage equality as the lower courts.  I can’t really articulate why, it’s just a feeling.  We’ll see!  I’m *positive* the anti-gay forces will try for appeal after appeal.  They’re pretty well funded.

  • squirrely-girl

    Not completely sure. Given the addition of Kagan, who knows? On the other hand, Walker was appointed by George Bush, Sr. and is a Republican. Similarly, the (mostly Republican) Supreme Court of California struck down the ban in the first place.  I think we’re getting to that point in time where people, regardless of political ideology are realizing that there’s just no legal justification for denying gay couples the right to marry. 

    A PRIVATE MORAL VIEW THAT SAME-SEX COUPLES ARE INFERIOR TO OPPOSITE-SEX COUPLES IS NOT A PROPER BASIS FOR LEGISLATION… California’s obligation is to treat its citizens equally, not to “mandate [its] own moral code.” – Judge Vaughn Walker

     

     

    All caps emphasis his not mine :)


     

  • gordon

    You heard it here first.  I predict that Judge Walker’s decision will easily survive the court of appeals, then the Supreme Court will sidestep the issue by declining to hear the case.  I have no inside information of course, so this is probably just wishful thinking on my part, but it does make some sense.

  • invalid-0

    That’s probably wishful thinking to expect SCOTUS to sidestep this case.  You know each of them are probably itching to make a statement on the topic.

    What you have here is a direct attack on the Constitution, one way or the other.  Walker has now pitted the people of California against the words of the Constitution.  This wasn’t some law that was passed – it was an amendment to the California Constitution – and was struck down as violative of the US Constitution… pretty much the only thing that supersedes it.  I think they’ll hear it.

  • arekushieru

    Pitted the people of California against the words of the Constitution?  That would assume that most of the people were for Prop 8, and we can’t make that assumption, when, as you said, this was an amendment to the Constitution, not a law that was passed.  Y’know…?  ;) 

  • winston-court

    As any Christian knows, perversion and abomination is never a civil right. These people, homosexuals, are infirm of mind. This “infirm-ness” spills over into all aspects of their lives. It makes rational, logical and sane thought impossible. While Jesus would want us to have pity on them and to keep them from abuse, he would have never advocated accepting their perversions or allowing our children to be exposed to the dangers of diabolical evil. This poses one of the most difficult tasks Christians have ever been faced with. The homosexuals think that government and the courts granting them homosexual marriage will provide them with a feeling of belonging, a feeling of normalcy, happiness, etc. It will not. Until they swear off perversions and ask God to step in and heal them, they are doomed. It makes any Christian heart bleed, but is a lesson taken straight from the Bible–remember Sodom and Gomorrah. These times come again … Christians will recognize the signs and prepare for the future trials and tribulations.

  • equalist

    As any Christian knows, perversion and abomination is never a civil right.

    Last time I checked, Marriage wasn’t perversion or an abomination.

    These people, homosexuals, are infirm of mind.

    Not according to the Amercian Psychiatric Association.  Take your personal bias elsewhere please.

    This “infirm-ness” spills over into all aspects of their lives. It makes rational, logical and sane thought impossible.

    Funny, most of the homosexuals I know seem a whole lot more sane than you do right about now.

    While Jesus would want us to have pity on them and to keep them from abuse, he would have never advocated accepting their perversions or allowing our children to be exposed to the dangers of diabolical evil.

    And yet he never said such himself… odd.

    This poses one of the most difficult tasks Christians have ever been faced with.

    Not that hard.  Accept the law of the land.  It’s in the bible to do that you know.

    The homosexuals think that government and the courts granting them homosexual marriage will provide them with a feeling of belonging, a feeling of normalcy, happiness, etc.

    Er… No.  They think it will provide them with the ability to publicly celebrate their love for another human being, you know, like all the straight people do.  Well, that and all the tax advantages, rights to visit a spouse in the hospital, rights to children of their union, that kind of thing.  Last I checked marriage had nothing to do with a feeling of belonging or normalcy.  If yours does, you might want to see a marriage counselor about that.  As for happiness, yeah, getting to know that you’re spending the rest of your life with the person you love as a committed couple within the eyes of the law can certainly add to happiness.  As does not having to worry about being descriminated against should your spouse wind up in the hospital, or something happen to your child.

    Until they swear off perversions and ask God to step in and heal them, they are doomed.

    You mean until they change who they are and become just like you?  Uh… I’ll pass.

    It makes any Christian heart bleed,

    If your heart was bleeding for them, I don’t think you’d be taking so much pleasure in condemning people who’s lives have nothing to do with you.  Just a thought.

    but is a lesson taken straight from the Bible

    So is not eating shellfish or wearing clothes of different cloths.  Your point?

    remember Sodom and Gomorrah.

    You mean the story that was about inhospitality, not entirely homosexuality and involved a man throwing his daughters into a seething mob to be raped?  Ah, fun times…

    Christians will recognize the signs and prepare for the future trials and tribulations.

    You mean the trials and tribulations that come with not being allowed to discriminate against people different than you?  Yeah, you might want to prepare to suck it up and deal with that one.

  • ack

    You know how you folks are so scared of Sharia Law? Hypocrisy: Ur doin it rite.

  • ack

    “You mean the trials and tribulations that come with not being allowed to discriminate against people different than you?  Yeah, you might want to prepare to suck it up and deal with that one.”

     

    There were groups who opposed desegregation who had the same “trials and tribulations.” It’s probably pretty emotional to watch your tools of oppression destroyed before your very eyes.

  • prochoiceferret

    As any Christian knows, perversion and abomination is never a civil right … Christians will recognize the signs and prepare for the future trials and tribulations.

     

    Would you like some cheese with that whine?

  • invalid-0

    It was a constitutional amendment that passed by a majority vote of the people of California, genius.

  • paulit

    Some people like to say “Life isn’t fair” whenever problems arise as if we have no control, I say, Life is fair,  people are not.

    I do not understand where these supposed CHRISTIAN attitudes are coming from – certainly not from GOD  who issued 10 commandments to hold sacred and adhere to – otherwise even GOD allows PERSONAL CHOICES or even beyond that the choice to live the life which is natural for each indivdual since for many people being gay is not a choice it is simply the natural state of being. And, being forced to be something they are not, or being hated,  punished and harrassed for it is unnatural and ultimately ungodly. And, it certainly does not create a loving and peaceful world, elevate us in the eyes of GOD,  nor does it create a world of heterosexual bliss.

    Let’s review the ten commandments to see if “Thou shalt not be gay”, or  “Thou shalt not marry a person of the same sex”  etc. was on GOD’s list of things for us to live our lives by:

     

    And God spoke all these words, saying: ‘I am the LORD your God
    (and,  many misguided christians currently have twisted the commandments to echo the sentiments in parentheses since GOD was not specific enough for them)


    ONE: ‘You shall have no other gods before Me.‘ (but revere  anti-gay self-appointed christian leaders as my representatives and follow their hateful ways as my own)

    TWO: ‘You shall not make for yourself a carved image–any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.‘  (but bow to the images of those self-appointed christian leaders who claim to interpret MY laws against gays)

    THREE: ‘You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.‘ (except when screaming holy words of hate about those GD gays)

    FOUR: ‘Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.‘ (and do not allow gays into your church but pray that they burn in hell for the vile creatures they are)


    FIVE: ‘Honor your father and your mother.‘ (unless they are gay or they made you gay)

    SIX: ‘You shall not murder.‘  (unless the victim is gay)

    SEVEN: ‘You shall not commit adultery.‘  (unless it is a man and a woman)

    EIGHT: ‘You shall not steal.‘ (unless your are stealing gay rights)

    NINE: ‘You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.‘ (Unless they are gay because we need to stamp them out)

    TEN: ‘You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor’s.‘ (unless they are gay because they do not deserve to live a decent life)

     

    Wow – GAY does not come up on GOD’s own original top 10 list, directly or indirectly….

    The ten commandemnts are common sense…you don’t even have to believe in GOD to see that the majority of these are just the only way to live a harmonious life. They gave lots of room for personal choices while providing sensible guidelines for living a good life.

    I cannot even twist any of these into the common anti-homosexuality rhetoric in parentheses. And, I am no bible scholar, I admit, but as I remember Christ himself hung out with people the likes of which make most mainstream Christians cringe. He chose to teach them through LOVE, living amongst them while being true to himself and his belief in GOD, and respecting them, not by HATE, alienation, and retribution. Please tell me how anti-gay christians are following in Christ’s footsteps?

     

    I do see however “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself” and it does not say unless they are gay….. so will some person who considers himself or herself a Christian please explain how you can adhere to GOD’s law and be anti-gay at the same time. You did not get this from GOD.

    Jesus called on us to love one another….he did not say unless they are gay..or with any other stipulations; yet you vehemently attack gays while calling yourselves Christians.

    How can Christians be so hateful and spiteful and beast-like and claim to be following GOD’s will or Christ’s footsteps; Christ was never like this, he never taught this type of behavior, and I am personally ashamed that people that behave this way and focus on harming others in such a manner according to their own “laws and beliefs” call themselves Christian or even claim to believe in GOD. It is blasphemous. You are not listening to GOD and you are not following Christ you  are listening to, and following, “people” that claim to interpret GOD’s word. GOD speaks directly to ALL OF US if you care to listen……”You shall have no other GODs before me” – you are putting others before GOD  by not listening to GOD yourself. If you believe GOD created everything and everyone then you believe that GOD created gays yet you hold yourself in judgement of GODs own creation.

    I believe in a beautiful GOD, a loving GOD, a harmonious GOD, a GOD I can trust always and I can talk with at any time, a GOD from whom I am never separate. GOD never tells me to HATE anyone, or to attack anyone, or to judge anyone and when I find myself in any of these modes I know that I am operating from ego not from my GOD center; and, this draws me back to the source – nothing hateful ever comes from GOD – hate comes from those apart from GOD – so if so-called christian leaders teach hate and hateful ways their teachings do not come from GOD….no matter how they interpret the bible.

    We can all have our opinions, we do not have to agree on everything, and we should be able to openly discuss what we think, but we must not use our opinions and beliefs as weapons or manage them in such a way as to instigate hate and negativity in ourselves or others.

    If you are really family oriented as you claim maybe you should focus more on “Thou shalt not commit adultery” (adultery is quite rampant, yes even among Christians and their leaders as well as most of our politicians that claim to be “family men”) and look in the mirror because these things were given to each of us to follow not for us to attack others.With respect to Prop 8, marriage is about LOVE, or should be, not about the sexual orientation the individuals getting married.

     

    If you followed just the ten commandments – even just “love thy neighbor as thyself” you would not hate gays (or any other group) and you would be following GOD’s word….maybe you do not love yourself? Have you ever noticed that HATING never results in LOVE or any positive changes. Do you feel closer to GOD (or even just better)  when you HATE? Maybe you feel you cannot “love” gays…maybe not right now, but you needn’t hate them either.

    When there are so many constructive things we need to focus on in the world how can we waste so much energy and create so much negative energy and destruction by hating much less doing it in the name of GOD (and worse yet as an edict of God)?

    “Love thy neighbor as thyself” …. if every single person in the world did this one thing who would be left to hate? Did you, christian, atheist and everyone in between, ever think of the unlimited power of good that would be created by putting this one commandment into practice in all of our interactions with others? It would be the closest to “Heaven on Earth” we could ever get and every single person in the world has the power to do this immediately; quite literally. Are we afraid of our own beautiful and unlimited power for love and all that is good?  And, if you truly cannot accept your vast ability to love, just don’t hate. If you want to change the world change yourself. Be the change.

    Ok, I may have been a bit redundant but some things bear repeating.

  • squirrely-girl

    That passed only marginally after waves of fear mongering TV, radio, and print ads, paid for by OUT OF STATE FUNDAMENTALIST CHRISTIAN GROUPS blanketed the state. 

     

    In the US we don’t put civil rights up for a popular vote. 

  • bornin1984

    In the US we don\’t put civil rights up for a popular vote.

    People really need to stop repeating this line, because it is untrue. What do you think the referendum process is?

    Anyway, the OP is a stretch.

  • arekushieru

    You fail to realize that the ONLY distinction that you could have POSsibly made between a law that was passed and an amendment to the Constitution is the fact that people didn’t VOTE on it, since laws are decided partly based on the Constitution, as well, so they would have been pitted against the Constitution, EITHER WAY. 

  • arekushieru

    You mean the story that was about inhospitality, not entirely homosexuality and involved a man throwing his daughters into a seething mob to be raped?  Ah, fun times…”

     

    I’m pretty sure that story was about a prescription against infidelity between the same sexes as WELL as opposite sexes.  So, yeah, Winston has no point.

     

    Edited:  Add this phrase from Pauli T, which encapsulates everything I said in the above paragraph so well;

     

    SEVEN: ‘You shall not commit adultery.‘  (unless it is a man and a woman)

     

    THIS is why there was a prescription applied to homosexual infiDELity.  Because the ancient peoples of the bible didn’t RECognize that a man lying with another man or a woman lying with another woman while each of the former were MARried was infiDELity.  That passage about Sodom and Gomorrah was about infiDELity NOT homosexuALity.  

     

    Now, the very individuals who are supPOSed to be the leaders in interpretation of the Bible have used their own interpretation of that passage to prescribe against infidelity between homosexuals but fail to prescribe anything against heterosexual infidelity.  How they cannot bridge the gap between interpretation of the passage as a taboo against infidelity and not homosexuality, with that in mind, is DEFinitely beyond me.

  • crowepps

    No, no, no, NOT a majority vote of the people of California.

     

    California has 36,961,664 legal residents

    Of those, 17,300,000 are registered to vote, or 46% of the total.

    Of those registered to vote, only 13,402,566 bothered to vote in that election, or 77% of those registered.  23% of voters didn’t think the issue was important enough to even bother to show up.  Considering the hysterical myths promulgated by the fanatics who poured millions into promoting the vote, that really isn’t that impressive.

    There were 7,001,084 votes for the amendment, or 40% of the REGISTERED VOTERS and only 18% of the total population.

  • bornin1984

    People who do not vote do not get counted towards the majority, nor do they get to complain about it later.

    And I am sure you would never put that logic towards something else, like referendums on abortion.

  • arekushieru

    And why shouldn’t they be?  I do not believe that anyone who doesn’t get to vote doesn’t get to complain.  And I DO apply that to votes on abortion.  Sorry.

  • arekushieru

    Really?  Why have you been unable to come up with an answer as to why it is, then?  

  • bornin1984

    Why not? Because when you have the chance to effect change, but you do nothing, then you do not get to complain afterwards because the outcome you wanted to come about did not come about– especially when you had the opportunity to make the change you wanted to happen, happen. That is the purpose of voting, and why people who choose not to vote typically garner no sympathy.

    Anyway, I said nothing about not getting to vote; I said not voting, which is very much different. Furthermore, you seemed to miss the point regarding when a majority is a majority, so never mind.

  • bornin1984

    An answer to what?

  • prochoiceferret

    People really need to stop repeating this line, because it is untrue.

     

    In the US we don’t put civil rights up for a popular vote. Sorry if this gets in the way of your little homophobic fantasy-land thing, but it’s true.

     

    What do you think the referendum process is?

     

    Voting on things that are not civil rights.

     

    You see, here in the U.S., we’re a constitutional democracy, so it’s not like you can vote on just anything. I don’t know how it was done in whatever basketcase country you came from, but trust me, this is a good thing. Even if it puts the kibosh on your whole gay-bashing-proposition business.

     

    Oh, and welcome to our country. Please resist the urge to hate anyone who isn’t like you. It’s kind of a faux pas around here, even though lots of people do it.

  • bornin1984

    If, in the U.S., we do not put civil rights up to vote, yet we put gay marriage up to vote, specifically because SCOTUS allows each state to decide whether or not to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples (See: Baker v. Nelson), then either:

    1.) Gay marriage is not a civil right, since it is often times put up for vote or
    2.) Gay marriage is a civil right yet we put it up for vote anyway.

    So which one is it, for those are your only two options?

    And for what it is worth, I am totally okay with gay marriage. Now you know, and hopefully next time you will not put that little paw of yours in your proverbial mouth as you are prone to doing.

  • arekushieru

    Hmm, I know someone who wanted to vote, but because she wasn’t registered found it impossible to do so.  So you’re just going to lump her in that category just because she didn’t vote?  Nice.  After all, how else do you think you came up with a neat and tidy solution unless you put them in the same category?

     

    Btw, I wasn’t talking about why we shouldn’t let them have a voice.  I asked why they shouldn’t be included in the majority, since most legal and census activities do include them as such. So, I guess, I DIDn’t miss it?  Hmmm…?

  • prochoiceferret

    1.) Gay marriage is not a civil right, since it is often times put up for vote or
    2.) Gay marriage is a civil right yet we put it up for vote anyway.

    So which one is it, for those are your only two options?

     

    3.) Gay marriage is a civil right, but that doesn’t stop dumb people from putting it up to a vote anyway.

     

    After all, it’s not like flying monkeys will attack you if you do something unconstitutional. Instead, it’s old people in black robes. They don’t fly, and they usually don’t show up until years and years after the fact. Not as much fun as the monkeys, I’ll admit.

     

    And for what it is worth, I am totally okay with gay marriage. Now you know, and hopefully next time you will not put that little paw of yours in your proverbial mouth as you are prone to doing.

     

    Oh. Sorry Mr. Gay Marriage Supporter, but I kind of took all of your arguing in favor of people voting against gay marriage to indicate that you were Mr. Repressed Homosexual Who Is Against Gay Marriage Because It Makes People Assume He Is Straight As An Arrow, the Third.

     

    And when I put my paw into my mouth, it’s because I’m grooming myself! I’m a clean little ferret!

  • arekushieru

    Why it is a ‘stretch’, which, with your lack of supporting evidence for that reasoning, would imply that you don’t believe in Gay marriage rights, since, similarly, you DON’T believe in the right to choose.

  • squirrely-girl

    I’ll take door # 3 :)

     

     

  • mejercit

    People who do not vote do not get counted towards the majority, nor do they get to complain about it later. And I am sure you would never put that logic towards something else, like referendums on abortion.

    And there is more to this point. We have an Article V process to expand our constitutional protections. This process was used to forbid states from preventing people from voting on the basis of gender, and to forbid states to prevent people of 18 years of age and older from voting on the basis of their age. So why did not the marriage equality lobby do anything to get the Equal Rights Amendment ratified? It has been at least seventeen years since Baehr v. Lewin, and the amendment was introduced in every Congress since 1923. Such an amendment would raise gender discrimination to the same level of scrutiny as racial discrimination. There is a strong case that defining marriage according to gender would violate such an amendment, as some people pointed out .

  • crowepps

    My father taught me that voting was my duty as a citizen, and I vote in every single election, even the local ones with not much happening.  I do agree with you that people who don’t do their duty shouldn’t complain afterwards about what kind of government they end up with.

     

    Your statement, however, was about The People of California as if half of the general population was in agreement with the resolution.  Your statement should have been ‘a little over half of the people who actually bothered to show up (and who didn’t screw up their ballots)’ which isn’t the same thing at all.  Particularly when that half were voting based on scary ads and outright lies promulgated by homophobic religious bigots who poured tons of money into the election.