title: Freedom of movement

text: Israeli , which has quasi-constitutional status, declares that "there shall be no deprivation or restriction of the liberty of a person by imprisonment, arrest, extradition or otherwise"; that "all persons are free to leave Israel"; and that "every Israeli national has the right of entry into Israel from abroad". In practice, stay of exit orders are liberally issued by Israel courts, including on non-custodial fathers who are not in arrears in child support. In March 2012 a corruption scandal exposed the quasi-legal reality of Israeli passport control, as two officials were arrested for allegedly having taken bribes to circumvent court ordered "no exit" travel abroad bans. Freedoms of movement in Israel are not similarly protected and a source of much controversy in the Palestinian West Bank and, to a lesser extent, Gaza Strip.


title: Freedom of movement

text: The Constitution provides for the freedom of movement within the country, foreign travel, immigration, and repatriation, and the Government generally respects them in practice. Citizens have the right to travel freely both within the country and abroad, to change their place of residence, to emigrate, and to repatriate voluntarily. Citizenship may be forfeited by naturalization in a foreign country or by failure of persons born with dual nationality to elect citizenship at the required age. The law does not permit forced exile, and it is not used.


title: Freedom of movement

text: Kuwait refuses admission to holders of Israeli passports as part of its boycott against Israel. In 2015 Kuwait Airways cancelled its route between New York and London following a decision by the U.S. Department of Transportation that the airline had engaged in discrimination by refusing to sell tickets to Israeli citizens. Direct flights between the US and Kuwait are not affected by this decision as Israeli citizens are not allowed to enter Kuwait.


title: Freedom of movement

text: Travel to North Korea is tightly controlled. The standard route to and from North Korea is by plane or train via Beijing. Transport directly to and from South Korea was possible on a limited scale from 2003 until 2008, when a road was opened (bus tours, no private cars). Freedom of Movement within North Korea is also limited, as citizens are not allowed to move around freely inside their country.


title: Freedom of movement

text: Syrian citizens are prohibited from exiting the country without special visas issued by government authorities.


title: Freedom of movement

text: The Syrian Constitution states "Every citizen has the right to liberty of movement within the territory of the State unless prohibited therefrom under the terms of a court order or public health and safety regulations.". In its mandated report on human rights to the United Nations, Syria has argued that because of this constitutional protection: "in Syria, no laws or measures restrict the liberty of movement or choice of residence of citizens". Legislative Decree No. 29 of 1970 regulates the right of foreigners to enter, reside in and leave the territory of Syria, and is the controlling document regarding the issuance of passports, visas, and diplomatic travel status. The document specifically states "The latter provision is intended merely to ensure that our country is not the final destination of stateless persons."


title: Freedom of movement

text: However, Syria has been criticized by groups, including Amnesty International for restrictions to freedom of movement. In August 2005, Amnesty International released an "appeal case", citing several freedom of movement restrictions including exit restriction without explanation, refusal to issue passports to political dissidents, detention, restriction from entering certain structures, denial of travel documents, and denial of nationality. The United Nations Human Rights Committee issues regular reports on human rights in Syria, including freedom of movement.


title: Freedom of movement

text: There are certain restrictions on movement placed on Women, for example Syrian law now allows males to place restrictions on certain female relatives. Women over the age of 18 are entitled to travel outside of Syria, however a woman's husband may file a request for his wife to be banned from leaving the country. From July 2013, in certain villages in Syria (such as Raqqa and Deir el-Zour), ISIS no longer allow women to appear in public alone, they must be accompanied by a male relative/guardian known as a "mahram". People who tried to leave ISIS territory were routinely tortured and executed.


title: Freedom of movement

text: The restriction of the movement of Israelis and Palestinians in Israel and the West Bank by Israel and the Palestinian National Authority is one issue in the Israel-Palestine conflict. In the mid-1990s, with the implementation of the Oslo Accords and the division of the West Bank into three separate administrative divisions, Israeli freedom of movement was limited by law. Israel says that the regime of restrictions is necessary to protect Israelis both in Israel proper and in the West Bank.


title: Freedom of movement

text: Checkpoints exist throughout and at entrances and exits to the West Bank that limit the movement of non-Israelis on the basis of nationality, age, and sex among other criteria. While many such checkpoints are static, many are random, or move around frequently. Full closures of the West Bank to any entrance or exit are frequent, generally taking place on Jewish Holidays.


title: Freedom of movement

text: Residents of Gaza are only allowed to travel to the West Bank in exceptional humanitarian cases, particularly urgent medical cases, but "not" including marriage. It is possible to travel from the West Bank to Gaza only if the person pledges to permanently relocating to Gaza. Gazan residents are only admitted to Israel in exceptional humanitarian cases. Since 2008, they are not allowed to live or stay in Israel because of marriage with an Israeli. Israelis who want to visit their partner in Gaza need permits for a few months, and Israelis can visit their first‐degree relatives in Gaza only in exceptional humanitarian cases.


title: Freedom of movement

text: Freedom of movement laws and restrictions vary from country to country on the African continent, however several international agreements beyond those prescribed by the United Nations govern freedom of movement within the African continent. The African Charter on Human and People's Rights Article 12 outlines various forms of movement-related freedoms. It asserts:


title: Freedom of movement

text: The ideals of the Charter are, in principle, supported by all signatory governments, though they are not rigorously followed. There have been attempts to have intellectuals recognized as having special freedom of movement rights, to protect their intellectual ideals as they cross national boundaries.


title: Freedom of movement

text: Under apartheid, freedom of movement for nonwhites was limited by pass laws beginning with the Natives (Urban Areas) Act 1923 requiring black men to have a pass with them to enter cities. After the National Party imposed apartheid in the 1950s, these laws were expanded to prohibit all non-whites from remaining in cities for longer than 72 hours. Beyond the African Charter on Human and People's Rights, the Constitution of South Africa also contains express freedoms of movement, in section 21 of . Freedom of movement is guaranteed to "everyone" in regard to leaving the country but is limited to citizens when entering it or staying in it. Citizens also have a right to a passport, critical to full exercise of the freedom of movement internationally.


title: Freedom of movement

text: Many countries mention freedom of movement in their constitutional texts, but France does not. Freedom of movement in France is ruled both by The Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 and the Schengen Agreement of 1990, promoting freedom of movement and no more borders controls for European citizen on the European territory.


title: Freedom of movement

text: In theory, citizens in France are free to travel without any police control on the national territory. Although until the 1980s any person (either tourists or French citizens) had to fill up an information sheet then given to the police, writing on it its personal situation before booking a hotel room. This law does not exist anymore however.


title: Freedom of movement

text: Since the Schengen Agreement in 1990, freedom of movement slightly spread to 22 countries of the European Union (Bulgaria, Romania, Cyprus and Croatia were not European members yet), and to Norway, Iceland, Switzerland and Liechtenstein as these countries own an associated status towards the EU. As European citizens, French people are free to go to one European country to another without restrictions.


title: Freedom of movement

text: France is one of the most welcomed countries in the world. Citizens are indeed able to travel to 186 destinations in the world, making France one of the most welcomed countries according to the Henley passport index.


title: Freedom of movement

text: In the Republic of Ireland, the Thirteenth Amendment was adopted in November 1992 by referendum in order to ensure freedom of movement in the specific circumstance of a woman traveling abroad to receive an abortion. However, with the successful repeal of the Eighth Amendment of the Irish Constitution on 25 May 2018, which ensures the right to an abortion, this previous amendment is no longer necessary.


title: Freedom of movement

text: "Every citizen has the right to reside and travel freely in any part of the country, except for such general limitations as may be established by law for reasons of health or security. No restriction may be imposed for political reasons. Every citizen is free to leave the territory of the republic and return to it, notwithstanding any legal obligations."


title: Freedom of movement

text: Uniquely, the Norwegian special territory of Svalbard is an entirely visa-free zone under the terms of the Svalbard Treaty.


title: Freedom of movement

text: Polish nationals holding dual citizenship are required to use Polish travel documents (a Polish passport or, within the European Union, a Polish National ID card (Dowód osobisty)) while travelling in the Schengen Area.


title: Freedom of movement

text: Poland requires all Polish citizens (including foreign citizens who are, who can be claimed to or are suspected to hold Polish citizenship) to enter and depart Poland using Polish travel documents.


title: Freedom of movement

text: Article 27 of The Russian Constitution states that "1.Every who legally stays in the territory of the Russian Federation shall have the right to free travel, choice of place of stay or residence. 2.Everyone may freely leave the Russian Federation. Citizens of the Russian Federation shall have the right to freely return to the Russian Federation."


title: Freedom of movement

text: Freedom of movement of Russian citizens around the country is legally limited in a number of situations, including the following:


title: Freedom of movement

text: Since the abandonment of propiska system in 1993, new legislation on registration of residence was passed. Unlike propiska, which was a permit to reside in a certain area, registration of residence as worded in the law is merely notification. According to the Russian legislation, there are two types of registration which a person may obtain simultaneously. Permanent registration is obligatory and gives the right for property ownership, temporary registration can be received for a period of time due to rental contract. However, administrative procedures developed "in implementation" of the registration law imposed some conditions on registration which effectively made it depend on the landlord's assent. Since landlords are often not willing to register tenants or guests in their properties due to tax payments, many internal migrants are prevented from performing their legal duty to register. Before 2004, it was common for police to fine those having failed to register within 3 working days at a place of stay. In 2004, the maximum permitted registration lag was raised to 90 days making prosecution infeasible, removing practical obstacles to free movement.


title: Freedom of movement

text: The Russian citizens' right to leave Russia may be legally suspended on a number of reasons including:


title: Freedom of movement

text: According to the 62 article of the Russian Constitution, citizen of Russia may have the citizenship of a foreign State (dual citizenship), but that does not "free him from the obligations stipulated by the Russian citizenship". Russian citizens possessing foreign citizenship may not enter or leave Russia on foreign travel documents. Russian consular offices do not grant visas to foreign passport holders who are (or are suspected to be) Russian citizens.


title: Freedom of movement

text: Everyone has the right to move and settle freely in the Republic of Serbia, to leave it, and to return to it.


title: Freedom of movement

text: Freedom of movement and residence and the right to leave the Republic of Serbia may be restricted by the law if this is necessary for the conduct of criminal proceedings, protection of public order and peace, prevention of the spread of infectious diseases, or defense of the Republic of Serbia.


title: Freedom of movement

text: According to Article 23 of the Turkish Constitution, each individual in the Republic of Turkey has the right to travel from one place to another.


title: Freedom of movement

text: The freedom of a citizen to travel abroad may be restricted due to his / her citizenship duty or criminal investigation or prosecution.


title: Freedom of movement

text: Britons have long enjoyed a comparatively high level of freedom of movement. Apart from Magna Carta, the protection of rights and liberties in this field has tended to come from the common law rather than formal constitutional codes and conventions, and can be changed by Parliament without the protection of being entrenched in a constitution.


title: Freedom of movement

text: It has been proposed that a range of specific state restrictions on freedom of movement should be prohibited under a new or comprehensively amended Human Rights Act. The new basic legal prohibitions could include: road tolls and other curbs on freedom of travel and private vehicle ownership and use; personal identity cards (internal passports, citizenship licenses) that must be produced on demand for individuals to access public services and facilities; and legal requirements for citizens to register changes of address or partner with the state authorities.


title: Freedom of movement

text: The Constitution of Canada contains mobility rights expressly in section 6 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The rights specified include the right of citizens to leave and enter the country and the right of both citizens and permanent residents to move within its boundaries. However, the subsections protect poorer regions' affirmative action programs that favour residents who have lived in the region for longer. Section 6 mobility rights are among the select rights that cannot be limited by the Charter's notwithstanding clause.


title: Freedom of movement

text: Canada's Social Union Framework Agreement, an agreement between governments made in 1999, affirms that "All governments believe that the freedom of movement of Canadians to pursue opportunities anywhere in Canada is an essential element of Canadian citizenship." In the Agreement, it is pledged that "Governments will ensure that no new barriers to mobility are created in new social policy initiatives."


title: Freedom of movement

text: Freedom of movement under United States law is governed primarily by the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the United States Constitution which states, "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." As far back as the circuit court ruling in "Corfield v. Coryell," 6 Fed. Cas. 546 (1823), freedom of movement has been judicially recognized as a fundamental Constitutional right. In "Paul v. Virginia," 75 U.S. 168 (1869), the Court defined freedom of movement as "right of free ingress into other States, and egress from them." However, the Supreme Court did not invest the federal government with the authority to protect freedom of movement. Under the "privileges and immunities" clause, this authority was given to the states, a position the Court held consistently through the years in cases such as "Ward v. Maryland," 79 U.S. 418 (1871), the "Slaughter-House Cases," 83 U.S. 36 (1873) and "United States v. Harris," 106 U.S. 629 (1883).


title: Freedom of movement

text: Internationally, § 215 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (currently codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1185), it is unlawful for a United States citizen to enter or exit the United States without a valid United States passport.


title: Freedom of movement

text: No federal Australian legislation guarantees freedom of movement within the Commonwealth of Australia. Various Australian laws restrict the right on various grounds. Until 1 July 2016, Norfolk Island had immigration controls separate from those of the remainder of Australia and a permit was required for Australian citizens or residents to enter. In August 2014 the Australian Commonwealth Government proposed regulating the rights of Australian citizens to travel to and from designated areas associated with terrorism.


title: Freedom of movement

text: In the island of Saint Martin, divided between Sint Maarten (part of the Netherlands) and the Collectivity of Saint Martin (part of France), freedom of movement is allowed between both halves of the island as stated in the 1648 Treaty of Concordia. It is possible that this may have influenced the development of a common identity in the island, which has led to a proposed unification of it.


title: Can You Feel the Love Tonight

text: "Can You Feel the Love Tonight" is a song from Disney's 1994 animated film "The Lion King" composed by English musician Elton John with lyrics by Tim Rice. At the 67th Academy Awards in March 1995 it won the Academy Award for Best Original Song. The same year the song also won Elton John the Grammy Award for Best Male Pop Vocal Performance.


title: Can You Feel the Love Tonight

text: It was a chart hit in the UK, peaking at number 14 on the UK Singles Chart, and achieved even more success in the US, reaching number four on the "Billboard" Hot 100. The song was a number-one hit in Canada and France.


title: Can You Feel the Love Tonight

text: The song, written by Tim Rice and Elton John, was performed in the film by Kristle Edwards (also known as Kristle Murden), Joseph Williams, Sally Dworsky, Nathan Lane, and Ernie Sabella, while another version used in the film's closing credits was performed by Elton John. It won the 1994 Academy Award for Best Original Song, and the Golden Globe Award for Best Original Song. It also earned Elton John the Grammy Award for Best Male Pop Vocal Performance. The single version contains background vocals by Rick Astley, Gary Barlow and former collaborator Kiki Dee.


title: Can You Feel the Love Tonight

text: It was planned to be sung only by Timon and Pumbaa, but John disliked the comical nature of the concept as he declared that the song was meant to follow "Disney's tradition of great love songs", and that it could "express the lions' feelings for each other far better than dialogue could". The final result was the song mainly sung by an off-screen voice (Edwards) with short lines from Simba (Williams) and Nala (Dworsky), and the beginning and end parts by Timon (Lane) and Pumbaa (Sabella). It also included Zulu vocals that, while mostly muted in the on-screen version, were much more prominently featured in the audio-only releases.


title: Can You Feel the Love Tonight

text: Within around one and a half months before the film was released in June 1994, John's recording was released throughout radio stations as a commercial single and entered the "Billboard" Hot 100. The music video of John's recording contains montages of John performing the song and scenes from the film.


title: Can You Feel the Love Tonight

text: In 2003, a remixed version of the song was included in the Special Edition soundtrack of "The Lion King", again sung by Elton John.


title: Can You Feel the Love Tonight

text: In the follow-up "The Lion King 1½", the romantic scene where the song was originally featured also had the song playing, but with a difference: interspersed with the romantic scenes were short comedic shots of Timon and Pumbaa trying to disrupt Simba and Nala's night out with the "Peter Gunn Theme" playing while they try.


title: Can You Feel the Love Tonight

text: The single release of John's recording (the closing credits version) peaked at number one on the "Billboard" Adult Contemporary chart for eight weeks. It also sold 500,000+ units in France.


title: Can You Feel the Love Tonight

text: Swedish newspaper "Aftonbladet" described "Can You Feel the Love Tonight" as a "really good ballad". Heather Phares from AllMusic stated that it is a "Lion King classic". Larry Flick from "Billboard" wrote, "John's distinctive voice slices through the quasi-orchestral tone of this power ballad". He explained, "He taps into the song's pensive lyric, giving it a warm, human dimension that would be lost on a lesser performer." Troy J. Augusto from "Cashbox" commented, "From Hollywood’s "The Lion King" soundtrack comes the always welcome voice of Elton John, who takes a stab at reclaiming his talent for crossover hitmaking with this orchestrated ballad, his most affecting single choice in years." He added, "Moving performance and a heady theme add up to hits radio action as well the usual adult formats and even some classic rock attention. A winner." David Browne from "Entertainment Weekly" noted that John's "croon and piano skills are aging quite well". Another editor, Leah Greenblatt, described the song as a "soaring Simba tribute".


title: Can You Feel the Love Tonight

text: A reviewer from Swedish "Expressen" called it a "typical Elton ballad with echoes of several of his old successes". Ron Fell and Diane Rufer from the "Gavin Report" said it is "sure-to-be a summer of '94 anthem." The magazine's Dave Sholin declared it as a "beautiful ballad", adding, "It isn't too early to work on that acceptance speech for next year's Academy Awards, Elton." Alan Jones from "Music Week" gave it four out of five, noting that it is "a heavily orchestrated and dead slow ballad" and "one of Elton's more memorable recent melodies." "The Network Forty" deemed it an "elegant ballad". A reviewer from "People Magazine" called it "sappy", adding that it is "sure to be song of the year". In 2016, David Ehrlich of the "Rolling Stone" magazine ranked John's performance of the song at the 67th Academy Awards in 1995 at number 12. British newspaper "The Staffordshire Sentinel" concluded with that "Can You Feel the Love Tonight" "creates the perfect romantic atmosphere".


title: Can You Feel the Love Tonight

text: According to a 2020 survey by OnBuy found that couples that chose "Can You Feel The Love Tonight" as the song for the first dance at their wedding were more likely to stay together, with 77% of respondents who chose the song remaining in their marriage.


title: Can You Feel the Love Tonight

text: In Walt Disney World's Animal Kingdom's "Festival of the Lion King", the song is sung by Nakawa and Kibibi. As they sing, two ballet dancers (one male, one female) dressed as birds dance on the stage. After the main chorus is sung, the male bird dancer attaches his partner to a harness that allows her to fly through the air.


title: 2008 California Proposition 8

text: Proposition 8, known informally as Prop 8, was a California ballot proposition and a state constitutional amendment intended to ban same-sex marriage; it passed in the November 2008 California state elections and was later overturned in court. The proposition was created by opponents of same-sex marriage in advance of the California Supreme Court's May 2008 appeal ruling, "In re Marriage Cases", which followed the short-lived 2004 same-sex weddings controversy and found the previous ban on same-sex marriage (Proposition 22, 2000) unconstitutional. Proposition 8 was ultimately ruled unconstitutional by a federal court (on different grounds) in 2010, although the court decision did not go into effect until June 26, 2013, following the conclusion of proponents' appeals.


title: 2008 California Proposition 8

text: Proposition 8 countermanded the 2008 ruling by adding the same provision as in Proposition 22 to the California Constitution, providing that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California", thereby superseding the 2008 ruling. As an amendment, it was ruled constitutional by the California Supreme Court in "Strauss v. Horton", in 2009, on the grounds that it "carved out a limited [or 'narrow'] exception to the state equal protection clause"; in his dissent, Justice Carlos R. Moreno wrote that exceptions to the equal protection clause could not be made by any majority since its whole purpose was to protect minorities against the will of a majority.


title: 2008 California Proposition 8

text: Legal challenges to Proposition 8 were presented by opponents quickly after its approval. Following affirmation by the state courts, two same-sex couples filed a lawsuit against the initiative in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in the case "Perry v. Schwarzenegger" (later "Hollingsworth v. Perry"). In August 2010, Chief Judge Vaughn Walker ruled that the amendment was unconstitutional under both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, since it purported to "re-remove" rights from a disfavored class only, with no rational basis. The official proponents' justifications for the measure were analyzed in over fifty pages covering eighty findings of fact. The state government supported the ruling and refused to defend the law. The ruling was stayed pending appeal by the proponents of the initiative. On February 7, 2012, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2–1 decision, reached the same conclusion as the district court, but on narrower grounds. The court ruled that it was unconstitutional for California to grant marriage rights to same-sex couples, only to take them away shortly after. The ruling was stayed pending appeal to the United States Supreme Court.


title: 2008 California Proposition 8

text: On June 26, 2013, the Supreme Court of the United States issued its decision on the appeal in the case "Hollingsworth v. Perry", ruling that proponents of initiatives such as Proposition 8 did not possess legal standing in their own right to defend the resulting law in federal court, either to the Supreme Court or (previously) to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Therefore, the Supreme Court vacated the decision of the Ninth Circuit, and remanded the case for further proceedings. The decision left the district court's 2010 ruling intact. On June 28, 2013, the Ninth Circuit, on remand, dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and dissolved their previous stay of the district court's ruling, enabling Governor Jerry Brown to order same-sex marriages to resume.


title: 2008 California Proposition 8

text: The passage of Proposition 8 received widespread media coverage over the amendment's effect on the concurrent 2008 presidential and congressional elections, as well as the pre-election effects Proposition 8 had on California's reputation as a historically LGBT-friendly state and the same-sex marriage debate that had started after same-sex marriage was legalized in Massachusetts through a 2004 court decision. After the results were certified and same-sex marriages ceased, supporters of the initiative were targeted by opponents with actions ranging from some opponents disclosing supporter donations and boycotting proponents' businesses, to others threatening supporters with death and vandalizing churches.


title: 2008 California Proposition 8

text: In 2000, the State of California adopted Proposition 22 which, as an ordinary statute, forbade recognition or licensing of same-sex marriages in the state. During February and March 2004, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom directed the licensing of same-sex marriages on the basis of the state's equal protection clause, prompted also by recent events including George W. Bush's proposed constitutional ban, a possible legal case by Campaign for California Families (CCF), and a Supreme Court of Massachusetts ruling deeming same-sex marriage bans unconstitutional and permitting them from May 2004. While only lasting a month before being overruled, this was supported by other cities such as San Jose, gained global attention, and led to the case "In re Marriage Cases", in which Proposition 22 was found (San Francisco County Superior Court, March 14, 2005) and confirmed upon appeal (California Supreme Court, May 15, 2008) to be unconstitutional.


title: 2008 California Proposition 8

text: Proposition 8 was created by opponents of same-sex marriage prior to the final ruling on "In re Marriage Cases" as a voter ballot initiative, and voted on at the time of the November 2008 elections. Its wording was precisely the same as Proposition 22, which as an ordinary statute, had been invalidated in 2008, but by re-positioning it as a State constitutional amendment rather than a legislative statute, it was able to circumvent the ruling from "In re Marriage Cases". The proposition did not affect domestic partnerships in California, nor (following subsequent legal rulings) did it reverse same-sex marriages that had been performed during the interim period May to November 2008 (i.e. after "In re Marriage Cases" but before Proposition 8).


title: 2008 California Proposition 8

text: Proposition 8 came into immediate effect on November 5, 2008, the day after the elections. Demonstrations and protests occurred across the state and nation. Same-sex couples and government entities, including couples who had married before then, filed numerous lawsuits with the California Supreme Court challenging the proposition's validity and effect on previously administered same-sex marriages. In "Strauss v. Horton", the California Supreme Court upheld Proposition 8, but allowed the existing same-sex marriages to stand (under the grandfather clause principle). (Justice Carlos R. Moreno dissented that exceptions to the equal protection clause could not be made by any majority since its whole purpose was to protect minorities against the will of a majority.)


title: 2008 California Proposition 8

text: Although upheld in State court, Proposition 8 was ruled unconstitutional by the federal courts. In "Perry v. Schwarzenegger", United States District Court Judge Vaughn Walker overturned Proposition 8 on August 4, 2010, ruling that it violated both the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the U.S. Constitution. Walker issued a stay (injunction) against enforcing Proposition 8 and a stay to determine suspension of his ruling pending appeal. The State of California did not appeal the ruling (with which it had agreed anyway) leaving the initiative proponents and one county to seek an appeal.


title: 2008 California Proposition 8

text: On appeal, a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals panel ruled the county had no right of appeal, and asked the California Supreme Court to rule whether the proponents of Prop 8 had the right to appeal (known as "standing") if the State did not do so. The California Supreme Court ruled that they did. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the federal district court's decision on February 7, 2012, but the stay remained in place as appeals continued to the U.S. Supreme Court, which heard oral arguments in the appeal "Hollingsworth v. Perry" on March 26, 2013. On June 26, 2013, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and ruled that the Ninth Circuit had erred in allowing the previous appeal, since in line with Article III of the Constitution and many prior cases unanimous on the point, being an initiative proponents is not enough by itself to have federal court standing or appeal a ruling in federal court. This left the original federal district court ruling against Proposition 8 as the outcome, and same sex marriages resumed almost immediately afterwards.


title: 2008 California Proposition 8

text: Proposition 8 (ballot title: Eliminates Rights of Same-Sex Couples to Marry. Initiative Constitutional Amendment; originally titled the "California Marriage Protection Act") was a California ballot proposition that changed the California Constitution to add a new section 7.5 to Article I, which reads: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." This change restricted the definition of marriage to opposite-sex couples, and eliminated same-sex couples' right to marry, thereby overriding portions of the ruling of "In re Marriage Cases" by "carving out an exception to the preexisting scope of the privacy and due process clauses" of the state constitution.


title: 2008 California Proposition 8

text: To qualify for the ballot, Proposition 8 needed 694,354 valid petition signatures, equal to 8% of the total votes cast for governor in the November 2006 general election. The initiative proponents submitted 1,120,801 signatures, and on June 2, 2008, the initiative qualified for the November 4, 2008 election ballot through the random sample signature check.


title: 2008 California Proposition 8

text: On July 16, 2008, the California Supreme Court denied a petition calling for the removal of Proposition 8 from the November ballot. The petition asserted the proposition should not be on the ballot on the grounds it was a constitutional revision that only the legislature or a constitutional convention could place before voters. Opponents also argued that the petitions circulated to qualify the measure for the ballot inaccurately summarized its effect. The court denied the petition without comment. As a general rule, it is improper for courts to adjudicate pre-election challenges to a measure's substantive validity. The question of whether Proposition 8 is a constitutional amendment or constitutional revision was ruled on by the California Supreme Court on May 26, 2009, and found that it was not a revision and therefore would be upheld. They also declared that the same-sex marriages performed prior to the passing of Prop 8 would remain valid.


title: 2008 California Proposition 8

text: The measure was titled: "Eliminates Rights of Same-Sex Couples to Marry. Initiative Constitutional Amendment." The ballot summary read that the measure "changes the California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in California."


title: 2008 California Proposition 8

text: Proponents of the measure objected to the wording of the ballot title and summary on the grounds that they were argumentative and prejudicial. The resulting legal petition "Jansson v. Bowen" was dismissed August 7, 2008, by California Superior Court Judge Timothy M. Frawley, who ruled that "the title and summary includes an essentially verbatim recital of the text of the measure itself", and that the change was valid because the measure did, in fact, eliminate a right upheld by the California Supreme Court.


title: 2008 California Proposition 8

text: California Attorney General Jerry Brown explained that the changes were required to more "accurately reflect the measure" in light of the California Supreme Court's intervening "In re Marriage Cases" decision.


title: 2008 California Proposition 8

text: On July 22, 2008, Proposition 8 supporters mounted a legal challenge to the revised ballot title and summary, contending that Attorney General Brown inserted "language [...] so inflammatory that it will unduly prejudice voters against the measure". Supporters claimed that research showed that an attorney general had never used an active verb like "eliminates" in the title of a ballot measure in the past fifty years in which ballot measures have been used. Representatives of the attorney general produced twelve examples of ballot measures using the word "eliminates" and vouched for the neutrality and accuracy of the ballot language.


title: 2008 California Proposition 8

text: On August 8, 2008, the California Superior Court turned down the legal challenge, affirming the new title and summary, stating, "the title and summary is not false or misleading because it states that Proposition 8 would 'eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry' in California." The Superior Court based their decision on the previous "Marriages Cases" ruling in which the California Supreme Court held that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry under the California Constitution. That same day, proponents of Prop. 8 filed an emergency appeal with the state appeals court. The Court of Appeal denied their petition later that day and supporters did not seek a review by the Supreme Court of California. The deadline for court action on the wording of ballot summaries and arguments in the voter pamphlet was August 11, 2008.


title: 2008 California Proposition 8

text: While turning down the challenge to the title and summary, the California Superior Court also found that the Yes on 8 campaign had overstated its ballot argument on the measure's impact on public schools and ordered a minor change in wording. The original arguments included a claim that the Supreme Court's legalization of same-sex marriage requires teachers to tell their students, as young as kindergarten age, that same-sex marriage is the same as opposite-sex marriage. The court said the Yes on 8 argument was false because instruction on marriage is not required and parents can withdraw their children. The court said the ballot argument could be preserved by rewording it to state that teachers "may" or "could" be required to tell children there is no difference between same-sex and opposite-sex marriage.


title: 2008 California Proposition 8

text: The pro- and anti-Prop 8 campaigns spent a combined $106 million on the campaign. This was not the most expensive California ballot proposition that year, however; the 2008 campaigns for and against Propositions 94, 95, 96, and 97, dealing with the expansion of Native American gambling, surpassed Prop 8, with combined expenditures of $172 million.


title: 2008 California Proposition 8

text: By election day, volunteers on both sides spent thousands of hours getting their messages across to the state's 17.3 million registered voters. The campaigns for and against Proposition 8 raised $39.0 million ($11.3 million or 29.1% from outside California) and $44.1 million ($13.2 million or 30.0% from outside California), respectively, from over 64,000 people in all 50 states and more than 20 foreign countries, setting a new record nationally for a social policy initiative and more than for every other race in the country in spending except the presidential contest. Contributions were much greater than those of previous same-sex marriage initiatives. Between 2004 and 2006, 22 such measures were on ballots around the country, and donations to all of them combined totaled $31.4 million, according to OpenSecrets. A ProtectMarriage.com spokeswoman estimated that 36 companies which had previously contributed to Equality California were targeted to receive a letter requesting similar donations to ProtectMarriage.com.


title: 2008 California Proposition 8

text: The California Fair Political Practices Commission fined the LDS Church in 2010 for failing to follow campaign disclosure policies during the last two weeks leading up to the election, which amounted to $37,000 in non-monetary contributions. They were fined $5,538.


title: 2008 California Proposition 8

text: Both proponents and opponents of Proposition 8 made significant use of online tactics for campaigning. For example, over 800 videos were posted on YouTube, most consisting of original content and most taking a position against the Proposition. A greater proportion of 'Yes on 8' videos were scripted and professionally produced. Many 'No on 8' videos recorded demonstrations in the aftermath of the election.


title: 2008 California Proposition 8

text: Proponents of the constitutional amendment argued that exclusively heterosexual marriage was "an essential institution of society", that leaving the constitution unchanged would "result in public schools teaching our kids that gay marriage is okay", and that gay people "do not have the right to redefine marriage for everyone else".


title: 2008 California Proposition 8

text: The ProtectMarriage.com organization sponsored the initiative that placed Proposition 8 on the ballot and continues to support the measure. The measure also attracted the support of a number of political figures and religious organizations.


title: 2008 California Proposition 8

text: Republican presidential nominee and U.S. Senator John McCain released a statement of support for the proposed constitutional amendment. Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich released a video in support. Both characterized the court ruling requiring recognition of same sex marriage as being against the will of the people. A political action committee run by former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, who personally supported the proposition, donated $10,000 to the National Organization for Marriage during their campaign for the proposition.


title: 2008 California Proposition 8

text: The Roman Catholic Church, as well as a Roman Catholic lay fraternal organization, the Knights of Columbus, firmly supported the measure. The bishops of the California Catholic Conference released a statement supporting the proposition, a position met with mixed reactions among church members, including clergy.


title: 2008 California Proposition 8

text: George Hugh Niederauer as Archbishop of San Francisco campaigned in 2008 in favor of the Proposition, and claimed to have been instrumental in forging alliances between Catholics and Mormons to support the measure. His successor, Salvatore Cordileone was regarded as instrumental in devising the initiative. Campaign finance records show he personally gave at least $6,000 to back the voter-approved ban and was instrumental in raising $1.5 million to put the proposition on the ballot. Subsequently, as archbishop of San Francisco, he has called publicly for an amendment to the US Constitution as "the only remedy in law against judicial activism" following the number of state same-sex marriage bans struck down by federal judges. He also attended and addressed the audience at the "March for Marriage", a rally opposing marriage for same-sex couples, in Washington, D.C., in June 2014.


title: 2008 California Proposition 8

text: In California's 2008 election the Knights of Columbus attracted media attention when they donated more than $1.4 million to Proposition 8. The Order was the largest financial supporter of the successful effort to maintain a legal definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman.


title: 2008 California Proposition 8

text: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church), also publicly supported the proposition. The First Presidency of the church announced its support for Proposition 8 in a letter intended to be read in every congregation in California. In this letter, church members were encouraged to "do all you can to support the proposed constitutional amendment by donating of your means and time". The church produced and broadcast to its congregations a program describing the support of the Proposition, and describing the timeline it proposes for what it describes as grassroots efforts to support the Proposition. Local church leaders set organizational and monetary goals for their membership—sometimes quite specific—to fulfill this call. The response of church members to their leadership's appeals to donate money and volunteer time was very supportive, such that Latter-day Saints provided a significant source for financial donations in support of the proposition, both inside and outside the State of California. LDS members contributed over $20 million, about 45% of out-of-state contributions to ProtectMarriage.com came from Utah, over three times more than any other state.


title: 2008 California Proposition 8

text: ProtectMarriage, the official proponent of Proposition 8, estimates that about half the donations they received came from Mormon sources, and that LDS church members made up somewhere between 80% and 90% of the volunteers for early door-to-door canvassing.


title: 2008 California Proposition 8

text: Other religious organizations that supported Proposition 8 include the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, Eastern Orthodox Church, a group of Evangelical Christians led by Jim Garlow and Miles McPherson, American Family Association, Focus on the Family and the National Organization for Marriage. Rick Warren, pastor of Saddleback Church, also endorsed the measure.


title: 2008 California Proposition 8

text: The Grossmont Union High School District in San Diego County, California, publicly voted on a resolution endorsing Proposition 8. The Governing Board voted 4–0 to endorse the amendment of the California State Constitution.


title: 2008 California Proposition 8

text: The Asian Heritage Coalition held a rally in support of Proposition 8 in downtown San Diego on October 19, 2008.


title: 2008 California Proposition 8

text: During the November 2008 election campaign, Porterville's City Council was the only City Council in California that passed a Resolution in favor of Proposition 8.


title: 2008 California Proposition 8

text: In the months leading up to Election Day, Proposition 8 supporters released a commercial featuring San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom stating in a speech regarding same-sex marriage: "This door's wide open now. It's going to happen, whether you like it or not." Some observers noted that polls shifted in favor of Proposition 8 following the release of the commercial; this, in turn, led to much speculation about Newsom's unwitting role in the passage of the amendment.


title: 2008 California Proposition 8

text: Opponents argued that "the freedom to marry is fundamental to our society", that the California constitution "should guarantee the same freedom and rights to everyone", and that the proposition "mandates one set of rules for gay and lesbian couples and another set for everyone else". They also argued that "equality under the law is a fundamental constitutional guarantee" (see Equal Protection Clause).


title: 2008 California Proposition 8

text: Equality for All was the lead organization opposed to Proposition 8. They also ran the NoOnProp8.com campaign. As with the measure's proponents, opponents of the measure also included a number of political figures and religious organizations. Some non-partisan organizations and corporations, as well as the editorial boards of many of the state's major newspapers, also opposed the measure.


title: 2008 California Proposition 8

text: Democratic presidential nominee and U.S. Senator Barack Obama stated that while he personally considered marriage to be between a man and woman, and supported civil unions that confer comparable rights rather than gay marriage, he opposed "divisive and discriminatory efforts to amend the California Constitution... the U.S. Constitution or those of other states". Democratic vice-presidential candidate Joseph Biden also opposed the proposition. Republican California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger stated that although he opposed and twice vetoed legislative bills that would recognize same-sex marriage in California, he respected and would uphold the court's ruling and oppose the initiative and other attempts to amend the state's constitution. The U.S. House Speaker, California Representative (8th District), Nancy Pelosi along with other members of the California congressional delegation and both of California's U.S. senators, Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, voiced their opposition to Proposition 8. Also voicing their opposition were the Lieutenant Governor, State Controller John Chiang, former governor and Attorney General Jerry Brown, 42 of 80 members of the state assembly, half of the state senators, and the mayors of San Francisco, Los Angeles, and San Diego: Gavin Newsom, Antonio Villaraigosa, and Jerry Sanders, respectively.


title: 2008 California Proposition 8

text: All six Episcopal diocesan bishops in California jointly issued a statement opposing Proposition 8 on September 10, 2008. Southern California's largest collection of rabbis, the Board of Rabbis of Southern California, voted to oppose Proposition 8. Other Jewish groups who opposed Proposition 8 include Jewish Mosaic, the American Jewish Committee, Progressive Jewish Alliance, National Council of Jewish Women, and the Anti-Defamation League (ADL). The ADL filed amicus briefs urging the Supreme Court of California, Ninth Circuit, and the Supreme Court to invalidate Prop 8. Los Angeles Jews were more opposed to Prop 8 than any other religious group or ethnic group in the city. Seventy-eight percent of surveyed Jewish Angelenos voted against the measure while only 8% supported the measure; the remainder declined to respond. The legislative ministry of the Unitarian Universalists opposed Proposition 8, and organized phone banks toward defeating the measure. They saw opposition to the proposition as a civil rights and social justice issue and their actions against it as a continuation of their previous works in civil rights.


title: 2008 California Proposition 8

text: In addition, the California Council of Churches urged the "immediate removal of Proposition 8"—saying that it infringes on the freedom of religion for churches who wish to bless same-sex unions.


title: 2008 California Proposition 8

text: The League of Women Voters of California opposed Proposition 8 because "no person or group should suffer legal, economic or administrative discrimination". Additionally, all but two of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People's local chapters in California and NAACP national chairman Julian Bond and President Benjamin Jealous opposed Proposition 8. Amnesty International also condemned Proposition 8, saying that "states should never withhold rights based on minority status".


title: 2008 California Proposition 8

text: A coalition of Silicon Valley executives urged a 'No' vote on Proposition 8. Google officially opposed Proposition 8 "as an issue of equality", and its founders donated $140,000 to the No on 8 campaign. Apple Inc. also opposed Proposition 8 as a "fundamental" civil rights issue, and donated $100,000 to the No on 8 campaign. Biotech leaders warned of potential damage to the state's $73 billion industry, citing Massachusetts as a top competitor for employees.


title: 2008 California Proposition 8

text: Many members of the entertainment industry were opposed to Proposition 8. Actor Tom Hanks, a strong supporter of same-sex marriage, was extremely outspoken about his opposition to the bill. Brad Pitt and Steven Spielberg each donated different amounts of money to the opposition campaign "No on 8". In 2010, the documentary film "" premiered to sell-out audiences at the Sundance Film Festival.


title: 2008 California Proposition 8

text: The Los Angeles Unified School District Board of Education voted unanimously for a resolution to oppose Proposition 8. The California Teachers Association donated one million dollars to fight Proposition 8. Chancellor Robert Birgeneau of UC Berkeley urged a vote against the measure, claiming a likely threat to California's academic competitiveness if Proposition 8 is passed.


title: 2008 California Proposition 8

text: All ten of the state's largest newspapers editorialized against Proposition 8, including the "Los Angeles Times", and the "San Francisco Chronicle". Other papers to have editorialized in opposition include


title: 2008 California Proposition 8

text: After the election, a number of protests were held against the referendum's passing. These included candlelight vigils outside organizations such as LDS churches that promoted the proposition. Rallies against the amendment took place in California and across the country, with participants numbering in thousands.


title: 2008 California Proposition 8

text: Boycotts were also a feature of public response to the outcome of the election. LGBT rights groups published lists of donors to the Yes on 8 campaign and organized boycotts of individuals or organizations who had promoted or donated to it. Targets of the boycotts included the Sundance Film Festival in Utah, El Coyote Cafe, California Musical Theatre, and the Manchester Grand Hyatt Hotel.


title: 2008 California Proposition 8

text: Some supporters of Proposition 8 reported receiving death threats, some of which claimed to be "stemming from Prop 8". Some LDS churches were vandalized with spray paint.


title: 2008 California Proposition 8

text: Fresno-area supporters of gay marriage were also harassed; "No On 8" signs at the Clovis Unitarian Universalist Church were torn up, with Reverend Bryan Jessup alleging that his church experienced vandalism "every night". Santa Clara County Deputy District Attorney (DDA) Jay Boyarsky attributed a surge in anti-gay hate crimes, from 3 in 2007 to 14 in 2008, to controversy over Proposition 8.


title: 2008 California Proposition 8

text: Various opinion polls were conducted to estimate the outcome of the proposition. Those margins with differences less than their margins of error are marked as "n.s.", meaning not significant (see Statistical significance). Those margins considered statistically significant are indicated with the percentage points and the side favored in the poll, as either "pro" for in favor of the proposition's passage (e.g., 1% pro), or "con" for against its passage (e.g., 1% con).


title: 2008 California Proposition 8

text: According to the director of the Field Poll, the discrepancy between the pre-election polls and ballot results is because "regular church-goers ... were more prone than other voters to be influenced by last-minute appeals to conform to orthodox church positions when voting on a progressive social issue like same-sex marriage."


title: 2008 California Proposition 8

text: Edison/Mitofsky conducted an exit poll on behalf of the National Election Pool which is the only source of data on voter demographics in California in the 2008 election. The statistical trends from the exit poll of 2,240 voters suggested that an array of voters came out both in opposition to and in support of Proposition 8, with no single demographic group making up most of either the Yes or No vote. The National Election Pool poll showed that support for Proposition 8 was strong amongst African American voters, interviewed in the exit poll with 70% in favor, more than any other racial group. Their support was considered crucial to the proposition's passing, since African Americans made up an unusually larger percentage of voters that year, due to the presence of Barack Obama on the ballot. Polls by both the Associated Press and CNN mirrored this data, reporting support among black voters to be at 70% and 75%, respectively. A later study by the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF), examining the black vote only from five counties within the state, suggested that black support was closer to 58%.


title: 2008 California Proposition 8

text: Those who described themselves as religious were the strongest supporters of Prop 8. According to the NGLTF study, self-identified Catholics and Protestants supported Prop 8 by measures of 55% and 66%, respectively, while Jews overwhelmingly opposed it, with support at only 17%. Young voters were more likely to have voted against the ballot measure than older voters, while Republicans were more likely to have supported the measure than were Democrats.


title: 2008 California Proposition 8

text: In California, a constitutional amendment passed by the electorate takes effect the day after the election. On the evening of November 4 the "Yes on 8" campaign issued a statement by Ron Prentice, the chairman of ProtectMarriage.com, saying "The people of California stood up for traditional marriage and reclaimed this great institution." The organizers of the "No on Prop 8" campaign issued a statement on November 6 saying, "Tuesday's vote was deeply disappointing to all who believe in equal treatment under the law." The counties of Los Angeles, San Francisco, Yolo, Kern, Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo, Sonoma, San Diego, San Bernardino, Sacramento, and Tuolumne stopped issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples the day after the election.


title: 2008 California Proposition 8

text: Following the passage of Proposition 8, mass protests took place across the state. These included protests outside the LDS Church's Los Angeles California Temple in Westwood, Los Angeles; a march through Hollywood that blocked traffic and elicited police intervention; a candlelight vigil in front of the Sacramento Gay and Lesbian Center and a large demonstration in front of the state capitol.


title: 2008 California Proposition 8

text: In San Francisco, thousands gathered in front of the City Hall, along with Mayor Gavin Newsom, to protest the proposition and to perform a candlelight vigil.


title: 2008 California Proposition 8

text: Following an audit by the California Franchise Tax Board, the proponents of Proposition 8 are facing a fine of $49,000 for violating California campaign finance disclosure laws, by failing to report $1,169,292 in contributions under the timelines required by state law.


title: 2008 California Proposition 8

text: Following the passage of Proposition 8, mass protests took place across the state. These included protests outside a temple of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Westwood, Los Angeles; a march through Hollywood that blocked traffic and elicited police intervention; and a candlelight vigil in front of the Sacramento Gay and Lesbian Center.


title: 2008 California Proposition 8

text: On Sunday November 9 an estimated crowd of 4,000 people protested in front of the California State Capitol. In San Francisco, thousands gathered in front of the City Hall to protest the proposition and to perform a candlelit vigil. Speakers who voiced their opinion in opposition of Proposition 8 included state senator Mark Leno and mayor Gavin Newsom.


title: 2008 California Proposition 8

text: Outside California, a protest at the headquarters of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Salt Lake City, Utah was addressed by local gay rights supporters including former Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson and three gay members of the Utah Legislature: Senator Scott McCoy and Representatives Christine Johnson and Jackie Biskupski. On November 12, 2008, more than 10,000 protesters gathered outside the Manhattan New York Temple to protest the support of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for Proposition 8. On November 15, 2008, tens of thousands of people in cities around the United States participated in rallies to protest the passage of Proposition 8 and to promote the expansion of civil marriage to same-sex couples throughout the nation.


title: 2008 California Proposition 8

text: The passage of Proposition 8 led to opponents responding by publicly shaming its supporters as bigots and boycotting supporters' businesses and employers. On November 7, 2008, a blogger revealed that Scott Eckern, then Artistic Director of California Musical Theatre, had made a personal donation of $1,000 to the "Yes on 8" campaign. All campaign contributions of $1,000 or more required a name, home and occupation be listed. On November 10, gay artists condemned Eckern and called for a boycott of California Musical Theatre. On November 11, Eckern issued an apology on the online site "Playbill" stating that a similar donation had been made to a human rights organization that includes gay rights as one of its causes. On November 12, Eckern resigned from California Musical Theatre. Executive producer of the CMT Richard Lewis stated that Eckern was not forced to resign but did so of his own accord.


title: 2008 California Proposition 8

text: Richard Raddon, Director of the Los Angeles Film Festival, also resigned due to boycotts by the gay community.


title: 2008 California Proposition 8

text: Protests in California were marred by racial incidents. Due to their support of Proposition 8, reported as high as 70 percent, some African Americans attending events were allegedly subjected to racial epithets and felt threatened. California Assembly Speaker Karen Bass stated she was disturbed by the treatment of African Americans in the aftermath of the passage of the proposition.


title: 2008 California Proposition 8

text: In reaction to the racial incidents, Evan Wolfson said, "In any fight, there will be people who say things they shouldn't say, but that shouldn't divert attention from what the vast majority are saying against this, that it's a terrible injustice."


title: 2008 California Proposition 8

text: To protest the passage of Proposition 8, musical theatre composer Marc Shaiman wrote a satiric mini-musical called "Prop 8 — The Musical". The three-minute video was distributed on the internet at FunnyOrDie.com. The cast includes Jack Black (who plays Jesus), Nicole Parker, Neil Patrick Harris, John C. Reilly, Allison Janney, Andy Richter, Maya Rudolph, Margaret Cho, Rashida Jones, Kathy Najimy, Sarah Chalke, Jennifer Lewis, John Hill and other celebrities. It was directed by Adam Shankman. The video satirizes Christian churches that selectively pick and choose biblical doctrines to follow. It received 1.2 million internet hits in its first day, won the 2009 Webby Award category Comedy: Individual Short or Episode, and won a GLAAD media award.


title: 2008 California Proposition 8

text: In 2010, "", a documentary alleging the involvement of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the passage of Proposition 8. Written by Reed Cowan and narrated by Dustin Lance Black, the film divided critics over a perceived heavy-handed approach to the church's involvement; it won the 2011 GLAAD Media Award for Outstanding Documentary.


title: 2008 California Proposition 8

text: In 2011, "8", a play re-enacting the proceedings of "Perry v. Brown" in a condensed manner of documentary theatre, was premiered on Broadway.


title: 2008 California Proposition 8

text: On November 13, 2008, Fred Karger of the group Californians Against Hate filed a complaint with the California Fair Political Practices Commission that campaign finance reports filed by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints under-reported its actual Proposition 8 campaign expenses as $2,078.97. Karger charged that the Church's failure to report "non-monetary contributions" placed it in violation of California's Political Reform Act. Church spokesman Scott Trotter denied the charges, saying the church had "fully complied with the reporting requirements" and a "further report will be filed on or before <nowiki>[...the]</nowiki> due date, Jan. 30, 2009."


title: 2008 California Proposition 8

text: In a report filed with the California Secretary of State's office January 30, 2009, the LDS Church reported its non-monetary expenditures as $189,903.58. On January 31, the "San Francisco Chronicle" stated, "While the deadline for the report, which covers the period from July 1 to Dec. 31, is <nowiki>[February 2]</nowiki>, many campaign contributions by major donors and independent committees must be reported within days after they're made." The article further stated that the executive director of the FPPC stated that the LDS church was still under investigation, and "In general, however, 'cases like these hinge over what had to be reported and when it had to be reported.' A late report covering disputed filings 'wouldn't remove the obligation to file on time' but would be considered by investigators."


title: 2008 California Proposition 8

text: In a statement issued February 2, 2009, the LDS Church responded to "erroneous news reports", saying its subsequent disclosure was "in no way prompted by an investigation by the California Fair Political Practices Commission," that "We believe we have complied with California law," and that the report's filing date met the January 31, 2009 deadline:


title: 2008 California Proposition 8

text: On January 7, 2009, supporters of Proposition 8 filed a federal lawsuit to block public disclosure of their donations. Alleging threats against their lives as well as other forms of harassment, the lawsuit also requested a preliminary injunction that ordered the California Secretary of State to remove information about donations posted on its website. Opponents of Proposition 8 called it "hypocritical" that its supporters would refer to their support of the measure as the "will of the people" while seeking to overturn voter-approved campaign disclosure laws. U.S. District Judge Morrison England, Jr. denied that request on January 29; he said that the public had the right to know about donors of political causes, that he did not agree that the plaintiffs had a probability of success in court, and that they had not proven they would suffer "irreparable injury" if he did not grant the preliminary injunction.


title: 2008 California Proposition 8

text: After the passage of Proposition 8, a number of lawsuits were filed by against the state and state officials with the intent of overturning the measure and arguing that Proposition 8 should not have retroactive effect on existing same-sex marriages. On November 13, 2008, the California Supreme Court asked California Attorney General Jerry Brown for an opinion on whether the Court should accept these cases for review and whether the measure should be suspended while they decide the case. On November 19, the Court accepted three lawsuits challenging Proposition 8 but denied the requests to stay its enforcement. The Court asked for final briefs by January 5, 2009. Oral arguments were held on March 5, 2009.


title: 2008 California Proposition 8

text: On Tuesday May 26 the court ruled that "The Amendment to the State Constitution referred to as Proposition 8 is valid and enforceable from the moment it was passed." The court also held that "Proposition 8 must be understood as creating a limited exception to the state equal protection clause." Justice Moreno in his lone dissenting opinion, argued that such a change to the Constitution should only be implemented "by a constitutional revision to modify the equal protection clause to protect some, rather than all, similarly situated persons" and not by a simple majority vote.


title: 2008 California Proposition 8

text: The Court did rule that their decision cannot be applied to retroactively annul marriages that were transacted while the practice was legal in the state of California. Proposition 8 has no retroactive effect. The California Supreme Court ruled unanimously on May 26, 2009, that the approximately 18,000 same-sex marriages that had occurred prior to Proposition 8's passage would still be valid and must continue to be recognized in the state, since the amendment does not state explicitly that it would nullify the same-sex marriages performed before it took effect.


title: 2008 California Proposition 8

text: Later legislation clarified that same-sex couples who married out-of-state within the window of legality would also retain their legal marriage rights. The bill was signed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger on October 11, 2009.


title: 2008 California Proposition 8

text: Immediately following the passage of Proposition 8, Arthur Smelt and Christopher Hammer filed suit in the Southern Division of the United States District Court for the Central District of California, in Orange County. In the case, "Smelt v. United States", the couple argued that Proposition 8 and the Federal Defense of Marriage Act violated the Equal Protection Clause of the American constitution. The United States Justice Department filed a motion to dismiss the case because the "plaintiffs are married, and their challenge to the federal Defense of Marriage Act ("DOMA") poses a different set of questions." On July 15, 2009, District Judge Carter dismissed the part of Smelt that challenged Proposition 8, finding that the fact that the plaintiffs were already legally married in California meant they had no standing to challenge Proposition 8. The challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act, however, remained intact. The remainder of the case was heard on August 3, 2009, in an Orange County district court. The lawsuit was thrown out because the two men had filed suit against the federal government in a state court, a technicality which meant the suit needed to be re-filed.


title: 2008 California Proposition 8

text: On the day of "Strauss v. Horton" decision, the American Foundation for Equal Rights (AFER) filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California to challenge the validity of Proposition 8. Lambda Legal, the ACLU, and the National Center for Lesbian Rights have since announced their support for the lawsuit. San Francisco filed a motion to and was granted intervenor status in the case, saying that their work in "In re Marriage Cases" and "Strauss v. Horton" provided them with "extensive evidence and proposed findings on strict scrutiny factors and factual rebuttals to long claimed justifications for marriage discrimination".


title: 2008 California Proposition 8

text: California Attorney General, and former and later again Governor Jerry Brown backed the lawsuit, saying that Proposition 8 violates the U.S. Constitution and should be struck down. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger took a more neutral path, saying that he supported the lawsuit because the Proposition 8 conflict asks "important constitutional questions that require and warrant judicial determination." Because this means that the Californian government will not defend the law in court, the proponents of Proposition 8's campaign were granted the right to intervene as defendants. The case was first heard on July 2, 2009, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in San Francisco, Judge Vaughn R. Walker presiding.


title: 2008 California Proposition 8

text: In an act unprecedented in California history both the Governor and Attorney General refused to defend a constitutional amendment.


title: 2008 California Proposition 8

text: In August, Judge Walker heard further requests for intervenor status and ordered a trial set for January 2010.


title: 2008 California Proposition 8

text: On August 4, 2010, U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker ruled Proposition 8 unconstitutional, but at the same time temporarily provided for a suspension of the ruling while he considered whether to grant an indefinite suspension pending appeal. Walker lifted the stay on August 12, 2010, thus allowing same-sex marriages to be performed as of August 18, 2010


title: 2008 California Proposition 8

text: On August 16, 2010, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit imposed a stay of all new same-sex marriages in the State of California. It also scheduled an accelerated time table for hearing an appeal of Judge Walker's ruling. Before the appeal trial begins, there will be a December 6, 2010 hearing on who has legal standing to appeal the District Court's decision and whether the proposition violates equal protection rights.


title: 2008 California Proposition 8

text: On April 30, 2009, the members of 'Yes! on Equality' submitted a ballot initiative dubbed "California Marriage Equality Act" to the Attorney General's office, requesting a title and summary. The text of the ballot would repeal Article I; Section 7.5 of the Californian Constitution as well as clarifying that no school curriculum will be changed and no clergy will be forced to perform any "service or duty incongruent with their faith". Yes! on Equality had until August 17, 2009, to gather 694,354 signatures in order to qualify for the June 2010 ballot, A petition for initiative for the November 2010 ballot also failed to obtain enough signatures.


title: 2008 California Proposition 8

text: Several LGBT groups of color (including API Equality-LA, HONOR PAC, and the Jordan/Rustin Coalition) published a statement "Prepare to Prevail," in which they argue that the ballot repeal effort should be delayed until 2012. As of February 2012, the repeal effort was canceled in light of victorious court cases.


title: 2008 California Proposition 8

text: In 2022, following comments by Clarence Thomas in the U.S. Supreme Court decision "Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization" that call for a review of "Obergefell v. Hodges", California LGBTQ legislators and advocacy groups proposed a legislatively referred constitutional amendment repealing the ban on same-sex marriage for the 2024 California elections; they agreed that 2024 would be the earliest date for a ballot measure to prevent competition of attention with 2022 California Proposition 1.


title: 2008 California Proposition 8

text: Following the passing of Proposition 8 in 2008, and the subsequent mass protests, several lawsuits were filed in both the State Supreme Court and in the Federal District Court.


title: 2008 California Proposition 8

text: In considering the cases within the state courts, on November 13, 2008, the California Supreme Court asked California Attorney General Jerry Brown for an opinion on whether the Court should accept these cases for review and whether the measure should be suspended while they decide the case. On November 19, the Court accepted three lawsuits challenging Proposition 8, which consolidated into "Strauss v. Horton". The Court rendered its decision on May 26, 2009. The majority decision was that Proposition 8 "carved out a limited [or 'narrow'] exception to the state equal protection clause"; Justice Moreno dissented that exceptions to the equal protection clause could not be made by any majority since its whole purpose was to protect minorities against the will of a majority. Until overturned by "Hollingsworth v. Perry" (below), the ruling established that Proposition 8 was valid as voted, but that marriages performed before it went into effect would remain valid.


title: 2008 California Proposition 8

text: After the California Supreme Court upheld the voter initiative, a suit, "Perry v. Schwarzenegger" (later "Hollingsworth v. Perry"), was filed in a Federal District Court in San Francisco. On August 4, 2010, U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn Walker overturned Proposition 8, stating it is "...unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause because no compelling state interest justifies denying same-sex couples the fundamental right to marry." The court also determined that "Proposition 8 violated the Equal Protection Clause because there is no rational basis for limiting the designation of 'marriage' to opposite-sex couples." The court also stayed the ruling; the voter initiative was to remain in effect pending appeal. On August 12, Walker announced his decision to lift the stay (which would have allowed same-sex marriages to be performed) .


title: 2008 California Proposition 8

text: However, on August 16, 2010, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit indefinitely extended the District Court's stay, stopping new same-sex marriages in the state of California pending appeal. It also scheduled an accelerated time table for hearing an appeal of Walker's ruling.


title: 2008 California Proposition 8

text: As the State of California chose not to appeal the ruling, an appeal was sought by two parties—the initiative proponents, and Imperial County (via its deputy clerk). The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals considered the question of standing first. On January 4, 2011, the Ninth Circuit ruled that Imperial County did not have standing to intervene in the lawsuit (by now called "Perry v. Brown")—the formal reason being the county's appeal had been "untimely", but also that the appellant was the county's deputy clerk, and precedent existed in other cases that a deputy clerk could not 'represent' a county.


title: 2008 California Proposition 8

text: To address the question whether the initiative proponents had particularized standing (that is, standing either via personal interest, or standing to represent the State's interest), the Ninth Circuit certified a question to the California Supreme Court on January 4, 2011, asking that court to rule whether, under the California Constitution or otherwise under California law, non-governmental proponents of an initiative have standing to appeal when the State is no longer willing to defend it. On February 16, 2011, the California Supreme Court unanimously agreed to address the Ninth Circuit's request. The court set an expedited schedule for the hearing and heard oral arguments on September 6, 2011. On November 17, 2011, the California Supreme Court issued an advisory opinion that the proponents of Proposition 8 did have standing, and could defend it.


title: 2008 California Proposition 8

text: On February 7, 2012, a three-judge panel on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a 2–1 majority opinion affirming the judgment in "Perry v. Schwarzenegger", which declared Proposition 8 unconstitutional, saying it violated the Equal Protection Clause. The opinion, written by Judge Stephen Reinhardt and joined by Judge Michael Hawkins, states that Proposition 8 did nothing more than lessen the status and dignity of gays and lesbians, and classify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples. The court found that the people of California, by using their initiative power to target a minority group and withdraw the right to marry they once possessed under the California State Constitution, violated the federal Constitution.


title: 2008 California Proposition 8

text: The court concluded that the trial court had correctly found Proposition 8 to have no purpose other than to impose the majority's private disapproval of gays, lesbians, and their relationships through the public law, and to take away from them the designation of marriage and its recognized societal status. The findings of fact and expert witness testimony in District Court played an important role in this appellate decision, emphasizing that it is unreasonable to believe Proposition 8 was enacted to: promote childrearing by biological parents, encourage procreation, be cautious in social change, protect religious liberty, or control children's education. The court declared that it is "implausible to think that denying two men or two women the right to call themselves married could somehow bolster the stability of families headed by one man and one woman".


title: 2008 California Proposition 8

text: The dissenting judge, Judge N. Randy Smith, noted in his dissent that states do legitimately prohibit sexual relationships condemned by society such as incest, bigamy, and bestiality, and impose age limits for marriage without violating constitutional rights. He stated that "gays and lesbians are not a suspect or quasi-suspect class" and are thus not entitled to the courts' increased scrutiny of laws that affect them. He wrote, "The family structure of two committed biological parents—one man and one woman—is the optimal partnership for raising children." He also said that governments have a legitimate interest in "a responsible procreation theory, justifying the inducement of marital recognition only for opposite-sex couples" because only they can have children. He urged judicial restraint, that the justices should refrain from striking down Proposition 8.


title: 2008 California Proposition 8

text: On February 21, 2012, proponents requested to have to the case reviewed en banc by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. If granted, en banc review could have taken a year or more, which would have delayed possible U.S. Supreme Court review. Pending the appeal, a stay was continued, barring any marriages from taking place. On June 5, 2012, the full Ninth Circuit refused to rehear the case; the stay would remain in place pending final action by the Supreme Court.


title: 2008 California Proposition 8

text: The Ninth Court's ruling was subsequently vacated (withdrawn) although it affirmed the district court ruling, since the Supreme Court later determined that the proponents of Proposition 8 had not had standing to appeal the district court's ruling.


title: 2008 California Proposition 8

text: The proposition's proponents filed a petition for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court on July 30, 2012, requesting that the Supreme Court review the case. Briefs in opposition both from the individual respondents and from the City and County of San Francisco were filed August 24, and the petitioners replied on September 4. On December 7, 2012, the Supreme Court granted the proponents' petition for certiorari and asked to be briefed for arguments concerning the petitioners' Article III standing, amid considerable anticipation of a finding of a lack of justiciability in order to avoid a holding on the merits. Oral arguments were heard on March 26, 2013.


title: 2008 California Proposition 8

text: Parties who lodged amicus briefs with the court included: Judge Georg Ress and the Marriage Law Foundation; William N. Eskridge, Jr., "et al".; the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence; the Public Advocate of the United States, "et al".; the National Association of Evangelicals, "et al".; the American Civil Rights Union; Judicial Watch, Inc., "et al".; the Eagle Forum Education & Legal Defense Fund, Inc.; the Foundation for Moral Law; and the state of Indiana, "et al".


title: 2008 California Proposition 8

text: The Supreme Court issued a 5–4 decision on June 26, 2013. Chief Justice Roberts wrote for the majority, and was joined by Justices Scalia, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kagan. Justices Kennedy, Thomas, Alito, and Sotomayor were in the minority. The Court found the proponents did not have standing to appeal in federal court. To have standing, they "must have suffered an injury in fact, thus giving [them] a sufficiently concrete interest in the outcome of the issue in dispute". Because no injury had been shown, the appeal to the Ninth Circuit should have been dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. (This only applied to the Ninth Circuit and Supreme Court cases.) The Court returned the case to the Ninth Circuit with instructions to dismiss the appeal. This left the district court's ruling overturning Proposition 8 as the final ruling in the case. Because the appeal was decided on the question of standing, the Supreme Court did not examine nor rule on whether in their view Proposition 8 had violated the U.S. Constitution.


title: 2008 California Proposition 8

text: Justice Kennedy, writing for the minority, said the views of the California Supreme Court on the proponents' standing should have been respected, because "the basic premise of the initiative process [and] the essence of democracy is that the right to make law rests in the people and flows to the government, not the other way around".


title: 2008 California Proposition 8

text: On June 28, 2013, the Ninth Circuit lifted its stay of the district court's ruling, enabling same-sex marriages to resume; minutes afterward, plaintiffs Perry and Stier became the first couple in California to legally wed under state law since the enactment of Proposition 8 in 2008, doing so at San Francisco City Hall at 4:45 PDT, with California's Attorney General Kamala Harris officiating at the ceremony.


title: 2004 Philippine presidential election

text: The 2004 Philippine presidential and vice presidential elections were held on Monday, May 10, 2004. In the presidential election, incumbent president Gloria Macapagal Arroyo won a full six-year term as President, with a margin of over one million votes over her leading opponent, movie actor Fernando Poe Jr.


title: 2004 Philippine presidential election

text: The elections were notable for several reasons. This election first saw the implementation of the Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003 "(see )", which enabled Filipinos in over 70 countries to vote. This is also the first election since the 1986 People Power Revolution where an incumbent president ran for re-election. Under the 1987 Constitution, an elected president cannot run for another term. However, Arroyo was not elected president, but instead succeeded ousted President Joseph Estrada, who was impeached with charges of plunder and corruption in 2000 and later convicted of plunder (but received conditional pardon from Arroyo).


title: 2004 Philippine presidential election

text: Moreover, this elections was the first time since 1986 that both the winning president and vice president were under the same party/coalition; this instance will be later repeated in 2022 when Bongbong Marcos and Sara Duterte under the same political coalition was elected president and vice president, respectively.


title: 2004 Philippine presidential election

text: This election was also held at a period in modern Philippines marked by serious political polarization. This resulted in lesser candidates for the presidential and vice presidential elections compared to the 1992 and 1998 elections.


title: 2004 Philippine presidential election

text: The political climate leading up to the 2004 elections was one of the most emotional in the country's history since the 1986 elections that resulted in the exile of Ferdinand Marcos. Philippine society has become polarized between the followers of former president Joseph Estrada who have thrown their support for Estrada's close associate Fernando Poe, Jr. and those who support incumbent Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, or at best oppose Estrada.


title: 2004 Philippine presidential election

text: The several months leading to the May elections saw several presidential scandals, Arroyo reversing her earlier decision not to run for president, the sudden but not unexpected candidacy of Fernando Poe, Jr., defection of key political figures from the Arroyo camp to the opposition, the controversial automated elections initiative of the COMELEC, and the split of the dominant opposition party, "Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino", between Poe and Panfilo Lacson.


title: 2004 Philippine presidential election

text: On a speech given on Rizal Day, December 30, 2002, Gloria Macapagal Arroyo declared that she would not run in the 2004 elections. She said that withdrawing from the race would relieve her of the burden of politics and allow her administration to devote the last year and half to


title: 2004 Philippine presidential election

text: strengthening the economy healing the deep divisions within Philippine society, and working for clean and honest elections in 2004.


title: 2004 Philippine presidential election

text: However, on October 4, 2003, Arroyo said that she would seek a full-term presidency, saying that her change of heart was for a higher cause, and that she could not ignore the call to further serve the country.


title: 2004 Philippine presidential election

text: Months before the elections, members of the opposition were encouraging actor Fernando Poe, Jr., a close friend of former president Joseph Estrada to run for president. Poe was very popular with the masses and it was widely believed that he would be a sure winner if he ran for president.


title: 2004 Philippine presidential election

text: On November 27, 2003, Poe announced during a press conference held at the Manila Hotel that he would run for president.


title: 2004 Philippine presidential election

text: However, on January 9, 2004, Victorino X. Fornier (a private citizen) filed a case against Poe and the COMELEC, saying that Poe was not eligible to run as he was not a natural-born Filipino before the COMELEC. On January 23, the COMELEC dismissed the petition for lack of merit. On February 10, Fornier finally filed the case to the Supreme Court, seeking for Poe to be disqualified from the race. His case was later merged with cases filed by Maria Jeanette C. Tecson, and Felix B. Desiderio, Jr., and by Zoilo Antonio G. Velez.


title: 2004 Philippine presidential election

text: On September 28, 2007, 8:30 p.m, Senior Superintendent Francisco Uyami, Pasig police chief stated that lawyer Maria Tecson, 40, had been found dead (in a state of rigor mortis) inside room 204 at the Richmond Hotel, San Miguel Avenue, Pasig (with her throat slit and with cuts on her wrist). Maria Jeanette Tecson, Zoilo Velez (promoted to Court of Appeals Justice) and Victorino Fornier filed the disqualification case against Fernando Poe, Jr. She claimed Poe was born out of wedlock, and that while Poe's birth certificate was dated 1939, his parents Allan Poe and American mother Bessie Kelly did not marry until 1940.


title: 2004 Philippine presidential election

text: On March 3, the Supreme Court, said in its decision that for lack of jurisdiction and prematurity, and ruling that Poe's father, Allan F. Poe would have been a Filipino citizen by virtue of the "en masse" Filipinization enacted by the Philippine Bill of 1902. Also, even if Poe had not been a natural-born Filipino citizen, he could not be held guilty of having made a material misrepresentation in his certificate of candidacy.


title: 2004 Philippine presidential election

text: The Commission on Elections originally affirmed the candidacies of six people for the president. The sixth person running for president was Eduardo "Eddie" Gil. The party of Eduardo Villanueva filed a petition with the COMELEC seeking to disqualify Eddie Gil on the basis of him being a nuisance candidate, his incapacity to mount a nationwide campaign, and that because he was running with the aim to confuse voters because of their similar names.


title: 2004 Philippine presidential election

text: Eddie Gil claims to be an international banker having a net worth of billions of dollars. His platform for presidency promised to make every Filipino a millionaire within his first 100 days of being elected. He also promised to pay off the Philippines' debt, worth trillions of pesos, from his own pocket. This was widely ridiculed, especially after a recent incident in which a check he had issued to pay his hotel bills during a campaign sortie, bounced.


title: 2004 Philippine presidential election

text: The "Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino" party (LDP) would form the core of the main opposition party, the "Koalisyon ng Nagkakaisang Pilipino" (KNP). However, members of the party disagreed on which person to support for president. Panfilo Lacson, a member of the party, advanced his candidacy for president but was not considered by Edgardo Angara, the president of the party. Angara supported Fernando Poe, Jr. Together with the party's secretary-general Agapito "Butz" Aquino, Lacson gathered the support of some members of the party and went ahead with his candidacy. The LDP was subsequently polarized between those supporting Angara and Poe, and those for Lacson and Aquino.


title: 2004 Philippine presidential election

text: By then, Poe and Lacson have both filed their certificates of candidacies for president. According to the rules of candidacy, every presidential candidate must have a political party to back him or her. With the obvious split within the ranks of the LDP, and with no signs that the two factions would come to an agreement, the COMELEC decided to informally split the party into the Aquino and the Angara wings. Lacson then ran under the LDP - Aquino Wing, and Poe under the LDP - Angara Wing, which would later become the KNP.


title: 2004 Philippine presidential election

text: During the campaign period, there had been numerous unification talks between the two factions. The opposition saw the need to become united under one banner to boost their chances of winning the presidential election against the organized political machinery of Arroyo. The plans of unification did not materialize due to the stubbornness of both Poe and Lacson. Lacson wanted Poe to concede to him and run as his vice-presidential candidate while the supporters of Poe wanted Lacson to back out from his candidacy and instead support Poe, citing his low performance in the surveys.


title: 2004 Philippine presidential election

text: Elections in the Philippines have always been a manual process with the results for national positions often being announced more than a month after election day. An attempt to rectify this was done by the Commission on Elections by automating the process of counting the votes. More than 30 billion pesos were spent in acquiring counting machines that were never used in this elections because of numerous controversies and political opposition.


title: 2004 Philippine presidential election

text: This election has seen strong shifts of alliances and new parties as candidates switched allegiances. The two major coalitions seen in this elections were the K-4 ("Koalisyon ng Katapatan at Karanasan sa Kinabukasan"), of the administration, and the KNP ("Koalisyon ng Nagkakaisang Pilipino"), the united opposition.


title: 2004 Philippine presidential election

text: The Koalisyon ng Nagkakaisang Pilipino (Coalition of United Filipinos), or KNP, is the coalition of the united opposition. Its standard bearers are Fernando Poe, Jr. for president and Sen. Loren Legarda for vice-president. The leading parties of this coalition is the Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino (LDP-Angara Wing), the PDP–Laban and the Pwersa ng Masang Pilipino. the LDP split is caused by stubbornness between FPJ and Ping Lacson. especially with the support of the former president Joseph Estrada and former first lady Imelda Marcos. The other major party under this coalition is Estrada's "Partido ng Masang Pilipino" (PMP, Party of the Filipino Masses).


title: 2004 Philippine presidential election

text: The third major coalition running in this election is the "Alyansa ng Pag-asa" (Alliance of Hope), This coalition fielded Raul Roco for president and Herminio Aquino for vice-president. The three major parties supporting this coalition are Roco's Aksyon Demokratiko (Democratic Action), former Defense Sec. Renato de Villa's Reporma Party, and Lito Osmeña's Promdi ("Probinsya Muna" [Provinces First] Development Party). The three parties were the ones that bolted out of the People Power Coalition.


title: 2004 Philippine presidential election

text: The Bangon Pilipinas (Rise up, Philippines) Movement is the political party of Bro. Eddie Villanueva. It consists mostly of volunteers, a majority of whom came from Villanueva's Jesus Is Lord church (Villanueva resigned from the church before submitting his candidacy, to prevent questions on separation of church and state).


title: 2004 Philippine presidential election

text: A faction named after the party's secretary-general Butz Aquino, this was composed of Panfilo Lacson's supporters in the LDP Party.


title: 2004 Philippine presidential election

text: This was Eddie Gil's organization. Gil was deemed a nuisance candidate and was disqualified from the presidential race, however, the party qualified for other positions.


title: 2004 Philippine presidential election

text: The official results of the election were released in staggered dates with most winners in local elective positions declared within two weeks from the May 10 election date. The winners in the Senatorial and Party-list Representative elections were declared on May 24, with the exception of the 12th senator which was announced on June 3. The results of the presidential and vice-presidential races were finalized by the Congress on June 20, more than a month after the elections. Out of the 43,895,324 registered voters, about 33.5 million ballots were cast giving a voter turn-out of 76.34%.


title: 2004 Philippine presidential election

text: On January 18, 2008, in a 21-page resolution, penned by Senior Justice Leonardo Quisumbing, the Supreme Court of the Philippines, acting as the Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET), dismissed Sen. Loren Legarda's electoral protest against Noli de Castro. 3 reasons supported the judgment: first, the PET approved the recommendation of Hearing Commissioner and former Commission on Elections (Comelec) Chair retired SC Justice Bernardo P. Pardo that “the pilot-tested revision of ballots or re-tabulation of the certificates of canvass would not affect the winning margin of the protestee in the final canvass of the returns, in addition to the ground of abandonment or withdrawal by reason of Protestant’s candidacy for, election and assumption of the office Senator of the Philippines;” second, Legarda's failure to pay the P 3.9 million ($1 = P 40) revision of ballots (in 124,404 precincts) fee despite court extension under Rule 33 of the PET; and third, jurisprudence of Defensor Santiago v. Ramos, teaches that Legarda "effectively abandoned or withdrawn her protest when she ran in the Senate, which term coincides with the term of the Vice-Presidency 2004-2010." Meanwhile, Noli De Castro on television stated: "This is the triumph of truth. The truth that I won fair and square. I thank the Supreme Court for echoing the true voice of the people. From the very beginning I was confident that I received the overwhelming mandate of our people as Vice President." Legarda stated that she will file a motion for reconsideration in due course.


title: 2004 Philippine presidential election

text: During and immediately after the elections, exit polls were conducted by various organizations including the Social Weather Stations. According to "The SWS 2004 Day of Election Survey: Final Exit Poll Scores Excluding Blank Answers", released by the SWS on 19 May 2004, the national vote percentages are: GMA 45%, FPJ 34%, Lacson 10%, Roco 6%, Villanueva 5% (slightly different numbers from May 11; error margin 2%, n = 4,445)."


title: 2004 Philippine presidential election

text: These results are affirmed when compared to the NAMFREL Quick Count as of May 21, as tabulated in "Comparison of ABS-CBN/SWS Exit Poll 2004 Results (as of May 17, 9 am; excluding No Answer) and NAMFREL Quick Count as of May 21 1:00 p.m. (Report #63)". The NAMFREL Quick Count shows GMA at 40.4%, FPJ at 36.5%, Lacson at 10.8%, Roco at 6.2%, and Villanueva at 6.1%.