Friday, May 24, 2013

STORYLINE Prop. 8

This storyline has only one article

Viewing thru of

Rate

Community

10 Votes up

2 Votes down

Your Tags

1 of 10

< >

No high resolution image exists...

1 of 10

< >

Loading images

Lisa Gorden and JDD Doran-Jammer, both blind, trailed behind the crowd of people marching around the Capitol, echoing their chants “Hey hey, ho ho, discrimination has got to go.”

Although they are not gay and said marching with crowds is difficult given their physical disposition, the two friends joined in Tuesday’s rally against the California Supreme Court’s upholding of Proposition 8.

“I’m just real sad and mad about the Prop. 8 decision. It just seemed important to come out in the heat and support this,” Gorden said. “We have plenty of noise to follow.”

Gorden and Doran-Jammer were two of an estimated 2,000 who appeared at Tuesday’s rally, organized by Equality Action NOW, which refers to itself as a Northern California grassroots civil rights organization. The rally began at the Gay and Lesbian center at the intersection of 20th and L Streets and continued with a march to the west Capitol steps, where a demonstration followed.

Among speakers at the demonstration were Senate President Pro-Tem Darrell Steinberg, Assemblyman Tom Ammiano (D-San Francisco), Assemblyman Bill Monning (D-Monterey), joined by religious speakers, spoken-word artists, musicians, organizations such as Marriage Equality USA, Courage Campaign, NOW, Stonewall Democrats of Sacramento and representatives of Meet in the Middle 4 Equality.

Steinberg expressed his admiration for “people who are willing to take [their] own struggles out to the streets.”

“It’s not about sex, it’s about love,” said Ammiano, who is openly gay. “It’s always been about love.”

Other speakers expressed anger and frustration, identifying the court’s decision as a disappointment and a failure to protect the rights of minorities in a democracy, as well as hope for the future of gay and lesbians and their families. They encouraged participants to continue to be active beyond the rally.

“Rallies are great…movements are better,” said speaker Dayne Damme.

Several speakers addressed the group of demonstrators across the street from the Capitol holding yellow “Celebrate Prop 8!” signs. Jorge Riley explained that he and some of the other 16 demonstrators were former members of the American River College student government that passed a resolution to endorse Prop. 8 in October.

“We want to be the alternative voice,” said Michael Hart, who was demonstrating with the former ARC students.

“It’s always important to show both sides and leave it to the people to decide,” Riley said.

Riley added that he was there to “support good family values” and that he was not demonstrating to endorse hate.

Jade Beranski of Equality Action NOW said that considering the heat and that it was a work night, she was satisfied with the turnout at the rally.

To read about yesterday’s initial reactions to the upholding of Prop. 8, visit the following link:

Initial Reaction

*AUTHOR’S NOTE: ALL PHOTOS TAKEN BY JONATHAN MENDICK AND JENN WALKER OF SACRAMENTO PRESS*

Flag Article As:

Liked this article? Share it with your friends:

Conversation Express your views, debate, and be heard with those in your area closest to the issue.

Jenn Walker

May 27, 2009 | 12:24 AM

Author's Note: Photos 2, 4, 6, 8, & 10 by Jonathan Mendick; photos 1, 3, 5, 7, & 9 by Jenn Walker

1 0

bbbbmer

May 27, 2009 | 6:23 AM

Hate won in today’s California Supreme Court decision. Hate is a powerful emotion that rallies stupid people to do stupid things, even when those stupid people pretend to be learned legal scholars with judicial temperaments. The Supremes took the bait of Ken Starr’s oral arguments that Californians may with legitimacy do profoundly unwise things through the ballot initiative process, even if those unwise things bar equal protection under the law to a whole bunch of fellow citizens. Yes, we queers are CITIZENS too, like it or not, and despite the bigotry and fear and frankly, the self loathing, of the very stupid people who brought Prop 8 into being, the Supreme Court’s opinion in these cases merely amplified the hate quotient in California, if only temporarily. They were cowards, seeking refuge in their own careers by not alienating the ill-informed majority who manifested hate last November rather than daring to simply uphold the law and to pierce this issue as one of first review, which would set aside precedents involving the initiative process. Prop 8 should, on its face, have been set aside due to the conflicts raised between the initiative process and its broadside hit against equal protection. The current California Supreme Court should hang their heads in collective shame for opting for job protection over the civil equities afforded under our Constitution and our laws. This fight is not over yet, especially given the rulings issued and laws enacted in a growing number of enlightened jurisdictions. Our next task is to ensure that each Justice that did so be shown the door to their next career opportunity, one where they cannot incompetently cower or sway to the bile filled angst of the very stupid people who forced their limp hands into this profoundly unjust corner. The struggle for freedom and equality never ends but always, always moves forward, even if that march is two steps forward, one step back.

2 10

trapper

edited on May 27, 2009 | 8:32 AM

When the people speak not to your liking bbbbmer they are haters? Someone has a narrow point of view here. If we look at the facts, California is the only state that has put the traditional marriage law up to a vote and it was won by the same percentage of people who also voted President Obama into office. Five other liberal states had to enact the gay marriage law by court orders or legislative action; they did not ask what the people thought.

As long as rhetoric like "haters" is used to identify people who don't agree with you, I don't think you'll be winning over any Prop. 8 supporters.

9 1

thsas

edited on May 27, 2009 | 9:31 AM

Wow. That is some rhetoric; "Hate won", "stupid people", "bigotry", "cowards", "ill-informed", "incompetently cower", "sway to the bile", "very stupid people".
Yes, this topic brings out a lot of hateful bigots alright.

8 2

bbbbmer

May 27, 2009 | 9:25 AM

Civil rights cannot be voted away. In fact, if you READ the opinion, Justices Werdegar's concurrence and Moreno's dissent make this point with the utmost clarity. And yes, to deny an entire class of CITIZENS the right to access of a civil good IS 'hate'.

Btw, thsas, it's rHetoric -- you might consider investing in spellcheck.

3 11

thsas

May 27, 2009 | 9:30 AM

Thanks for the correction, I can't get spell check to work on this site...I am a bad speller. The expression that difines opinion that differs from yours to be hate and stupidity is not impressive.

11 0

trapper

May 27, 2009 | 10:02 AM

Nobodys civil rights have been voted away. California's current domestic partnership legislation affords same-sex couples "all of the core substantive rights" of marriage, retaining the term "marriage" for the union between a man and a woman "does not violate the fundamental constitutional right to marry embodied in the California Constitution."

Homosexual marriage is not a civil rights issue. The civil rights movement used the equal-protection clause in the U.S. Constitution to justly claim already established rights, such as equal treatment in public accommodations and equal access to public schools. However, there is no right in state law or in the state Constitution to term same-sex unions "marriage," nor in federal law. No one has been deprived of the law's equal protection, or of the right to marry, only of the right to term a same-sex union "marriage."

7 5

bbbbmer

May 27, 2009 | 1:45 PM

Before making such a ridiculous statement, you might try reading the operant California codes governing marriage and property, and comparing relevant sections on 'marriage' versus 'domestic partnerships'. The two are NOT equivalent -- by a LONG shot.

4 8

Felicia Pitre

May 28, 2009 | 1:16 PM

Key phrase, Trapper, "substantive rights." And I also believe you are incorrect in stating that same-sex couples have the right to "marry," but not deem those unions as marriage. It's all semantics. The bottom line: same-sex couples who desire to "marry" want to be treated just as married heterosexual couples.

2 1

The Parrhesiac

edited on May 27, 2009 | 11:50 AM

Gays are turning people against their cause by their hate speech. They are alienating those who could care less about what they do in the privacy of their own bedrooms...now we can see that this is not about where they put their genitalia. And this is not about "love" nothing stops you from loving someone...This is nothing but the liberal political machine being wrapped in a rainbow flag. The Democrats have latched onto this issue like a pit bull...

So lets call a spade a spade....this is nothing but a political power grab draped in leather chaps.

7 7

Felicia Pitre

May 28, 2009 | 1:21 PM

I am a bit offended by the term "gays" in reference to the LGBT community. It's quite similar to the use of the terms "blacks" or "jews." Language does matter.

2 1

Jeff McCrory

May 28, 2009 | 1:55 PM

LGBT is such an ugly acronym, in my opinion. I can never get myself to use it. I also think it confers a false solidarity among these groups. Let's be honest about male domination in our society: if gay men were granted the sexual prerogatives that men in Classical Greek times had, sexual orientation would be a non-issue. (On second thought, maybe this is too pessimistic, but there is a grain of truth to it).

I guess I could use gays and lesbians to be more inclusive, but for me the term lesbians feels too sexualized. "Lesbianism" plays such a big role in pornography. The "male gaze" in this regard acts as a kind of veil that hides the experience of real lesbians.

What about the term queer? It's a good word. It's a fun word to say. It has a good mouth feel, as it were. Do you think it is culturally acceptable for non-homosexuals to use the term?

1 2

trapper

edited on May 28, 2009 | 9:44 PM

Yes Jeff.

Monique, if the terms "Blacks" and "Jews" offend you, how do you feel about calling white people white? If your okay with the term "white", then the term "black" should also be just fine too.

1 1

Felicia Pitre

May 29, 2009 | 9:06 AM

The term "queer" is becoming more widely used in the LGBT community, especially among academics.

I suppose I should better articulate my point by saying it is the way the terms "gays," "blacks," and "jews" are stated and used. I would never refer to a group of people as "whites." It simply sounds derogatory. If referring to a group of people, I prefer, at the very least, to say "white people" or "black people." See the difference? It's not the term, but the way in which it is used.

0 0

The Parrhesiac

edited on May 29, 2009 | 9:44 PM

Now what are we supposed to call Jews? hmm, I missed the last couple of nomenclature conventions.

How about homosexual for homosexuals and transgendered...um...transgendered..and Bi for bisexual...???

Queer is funny...that's from the 70's...is it making a comeback?

I personally like "Fruits" it's a cute name... it's kinda green and vegetarian.

Is this really an issue?

0 0

Rick Reynolds

May 27, 2009 | 12:03 PM

Separate is by its very nature not equal. Same Sex Marriage is most certainly a civil rights issue, just as interracial marriage was not too long ago. Telling a group of people they can not marry the person they love and are in a relationship with seems a bit more like hate than love to me. I know no one likes to be told they are being hateful, but the very act of voting on the private lives and most personal of decisions a couple seems more filled with fear than with love. At least for 18 thousand couples in California gay marriage is legal. During the campaign on measure 8 supporters said they didn't want to undo the marriages already performed yet days after the measure past they sought to have those marriages annulled. It is really hard to accept that they want gay and lesbian folks to have all the same rights just not use the word marriage. Domestic Partners in California have similar rights as married couples but not the same rights. Perhaps the real solution here is to end marriage in California. Leave the word marriage to the church and from this point forward have the government only sanction civil unions and domestic partnerships for any couple or group of people who wish to enter into this legal contract.

5 7

Jeff McCrory

May 27, 2009 | 12:30 PM

I have to say: what's so wrong with hate? Hate keeps me warm. It keeps me motivated. Anyway I think hate is probably less a reason for people's negative reaction to gays than the "yuck factor." Haven't you ever hung around rednecks before? All their homophobic jokes are about hairy men kissing.

By all means, people should get over their childish reactions to other people's sex lives, but the problem with prop 8, imho, is that it is unjust, not that it is hateful.

2 9

trapper

edited on May 27, 2009 | 1:55 PM

Unjust? Gays receive all the same rights as straights with "Domestic Partners" as "Married" straights do... so what's unjust about that?

6 3

Joel Rosenberg

May 27, 2009 | 2:01 PM

"Gays receive all the same rights as straights with "Civil Unions" as "Married" straights do"

Just to address that "all" in your statement: couples in state-sanctioned civil unions do not receive the benefits of marriage at the federal level. This includes the ability to file one's federal tax form jointly or sponsor a spouse for citizenship.

Even outside the federal level one could make the argument that because it is more costly to hire a lawyer to grant or enforce rights such as the power of attorney or medical visitation allowances, couples in civil unions are disenfranchised due of the greater number of hoops required to jump through in order to realize the rights both arrangements share.

6 2

Jeff McCrory

May 27, 2009 | 1:08 PM

Here's an interesting bit of news:

"In a bold move that takes a new approach to achieving marriage equality, two attorneys who argued opposing sides of the 2000 Bush v. Gore lawsuit before the U.S. Supreme Court have filed a challenge to Proposition 8 in federal court, The Advocate has learned.

Theodore B. Olson, the U.S. solicitor general from 2001 to 2004 under President George W. Bush, and David Boies, a high-profile trial lawyer who argued on behalf of former vice president Al Gore, filed the suit May 22 in U.S. district court on behalf of two California gay couples."

Full story: http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid86253.asp

It's noteworthy that traditional ideological fault lines don't always apply to this issue.

2 5

The Parrhesiac

edited on May 27, 2009 | 1:44 PM

Contrary to what the left would have you believe, true conservatives and libertarians support gay marriage...it's about individual liberty.

The problem is the gay marriage issue is nothing but a political ruse for 95% of supporters who want to have a social issue to rally behind. The straight hipsters are bored and want to feel like they have their parents 60's fervor for a civil rights movement...which this is not.

6 5

bbbbmer

May 28, 2009 | 6:09 AM

It is at least *strange* that Ted Olsen, who was so very much aligned with Ken Starr during the Clinton impeachment, and was the Bush/Cheney administration's Solicitor General, would insinuate himself in this cause of action, which has been lambasted by those who actually litigated against Prop 8 and have been at the forefront of this struggle since its inception. It is suspected that this Federal challenge is an attempt to prematurely sabotage the issue of marriage equality before the Supreme Court while it remains in right wing hands, for Justices Roberts, Alito, Scalia, and Thomas would likely weigh against more evolved opinion,, though how Kennedy would decide remains in question, especially given his authorship of the Colorado case and other issues involving equal protection,, which is paramount in defeating Prop 8.

1 5

bbbbmer

May 27, 2009 | 1:42 PM

Those of you who state that 'domestic partnerships' are equivalent to marriage have clearly never read the operant statutes. There are nearly 1,400 basic rights that are automatically afforded married couples that are specifically omitted from domestic partnerships under California law. Rather than improvising the right wing's talking points on this issue, you might try READING the law.

However the underlying issue isn't marriage per se, it's equal access to the civil good by all citizens, including citizens who are members of the LGBT communities. Yesterday's decision exposes ALL minorities to majority/mob whim, a prospect that is geometrically Orwellian indeed.

6 8

bbbbmer

May 27, 2009 | 1:47 PM

Btw, trapper, there are no 'civil unions' in California -- you might try reviewing the relevant codes on the subject...

1 7

Oracle

May 27, 2009 | 2:09 PM

Wow, the venomous hate in bbbbmer's posts are not beneficial to the gay rights movement. That type of poison is one of the main reasons the momentum has swung sharply to the Yes on 8 crowd's position. Gay activists really should take courses in public relations.

6 3

bbbbmer

May 28, 2009 | 5:58 AM

I guess asking right wing zealots to READ anything, let alone a court opinion or a statute, seems 'hateful' to the haters who brought Prop 8 into being, especially when the same groups have no doubt burned more books than they've ever read.

1 6

Kelly Krehbiel

May 27, 2009 | 3:54 PM

To me, it's not about gay people getting married (honestly, who cares?) I simply oppose the creation of a condition where discrimination became the rule of law. It's not hard to believe that 52% of California voters feel threatened by this issue. I'd ask them to live and let live. This isn't a moral issue, its one of equality. Simple as that.

6 4

Jenn Walker

edited on May 28, 2009 | 9:27 AM

This is what CA family code Section 297.5 (a) states regarding domestic partnerships:

"Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they
derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules, government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses."

"1,400 basic rights that are automatically afforded married couples that are specifically omitted from domestic partnerships" that bbbbmer is referring to, from what I understand, are limitations created by the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

DOMA defines marriage as between man & woman only, impacting more than 1,138 federal laws and programs in which marital status is a factor as of 2003 (This figure is cited by the U.S. Gen. Accountability Office).

Something no one has mentioned yet is how Prop. 8 affects a marriage involving an intersex person(someone who can physically identify with both sexes). In California domestic partnerships are limited only to same-sex couples or couples over the age of 62, and as of yesterday marriage can still only be between a man and a woman in the state.

4 0

bbbbmer

May 28, 2009 | 5:56 AM

Benefits afforded domestic partnerships depend on recognition of those rights by institutions, public and private, that honor them. There is nothing in the law compelling an employer, for example, to recognize DP's as they would marriages.

Furthermore, the '1,138 Federal laws and programs' you cite differ with Lambda Legal's analysis of statutory benefits conferred by marriage when compared to DP's.

There is still a question whether DOMA trumps recognition of one state's marriage equality statute with another, which issue at least two cases, one from Massachusetts, one from New Hampshire, are currently taking up Federally.

There remain vast differences between DP's and marriage on a variety of fronts, and it was ridiculously ill-informed and insensitive for yesterday's Court, or anyone else, for that matter, majority to assert equivalence.

2 5

Jenn Walker

edited on May 28, 2009 | 9:32 AM

According to the U.S. Gen. Accountability Office in a letter to former Sen. Majority leader Bill Frist in 2004, it stated originally citing 1,049 federal statutory provisions that exclude unmarried couples in a 1997 report; in 2003 they updated that figure to 1,138.

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04353r.pdf

I am not sure which figures have precedence--I don't know what Lambda's Legal analysis is based on or how recent it is. Really any of these figures are significant.

2 0

The Parrhesiac

May 27, 2009 | 10:56 PM

Homosexuals have the same rights as anyone else to marry someone of the opposite sex.

6 3

Kelly Krehbiel

May 28, 2009 | 10:07 AM

They do not however have the same rights as other homosexuals who have been allowed to marry - and whose marriages are still valid.

2 2

Jeff McCrory

May 28, 2009 | 10:31 AM

Even though the above argument has the threadbare quality of a talk radio staple, which it is, it does point to a fundamental problem with the argument that gay marriage is a civil right. At the end of the day, advocates for gay marriage are asking society to expand the notion of marriage to include gay relationships. Since gay relationships have become weaved into the fabric of our society, it seems, from my point of view, utterly uncharitable not to grant gay relationships the official sanction that gay men and women are asking for. However, a very tiny majority of Californians don't see things this way, thus here we are.

That said, I believe Prop 8 is an unjust law because it enshrines into the state constitution a view of an issue that is in the process of evolving. The people who devised prop 8 know this. Prop 8 is tantamount to a scorched earth policy of retreating soldiers. Gay marriage is marching forward, and they can't stop it, so they are just going to make things as difficult as they can in the meantime.

1 3

thsas

edited on May 28, 2009 | 10:41 AM

Do those that can remain married have special rights? Or are they just grandfathered in?

0 0

The Parrhesiac

edited on May 28, 2009 | 11:57 AM

This is not a special right...the Supreme Court had no other option but to allow previous gay marriages to stand. While I have not read the actual decision, no doubt their reasoning was based on the constitution prohibition from enacting, "ex post facto" laws or any court decisions which would have the same effect as enacting an ex post facto law.

At the time of the marriages, it was legal for gays to marry. Post election, it is not. I don't see how the court could have invalidated the previous marriages. It's a rather simple constitutional issue, you cant retroactively outlaw an action or behavior that was legal at the time of the act.

7 0