Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Gay Couples Hold Vigils Urging Justices to End Prop. 8
As opponents stage events across the state, backers prepare for today's state Supreme Court hearing on November ballot measure banning same-sex marriage.
It was one of dozens of vigils held across California hours before the state Supreme Court hears oral arguments in the legal challenges to Proposition 8, the November ballot measure that banned same-sex marriage.
Proposition 8 protesters take part in a candlelight march in downtown Los Angeles on Wednesday as the California Supreme Court prepares to hear legal arguments against the ballot measure banning same-sex marriage. (Luis Sinco / Los Angeles Times) Many of the 200 or so people who attended Los Angeles' vigil said they did not expect their demonstration to influence the justices who will decide whether Proposition 8 is valid.
But they did want to send a public message, "to put a face on the issue," as Kate Kuykendall put it. Kuykendall, 32, of El Segundo, wore a white wedding dress. She and her wife, Tori, 32, are featured in a video set to the Regina Spektor song "Fidelity," which has become the gay marriage anthem.
Events were held Wednesday night in cities and towns across California, from San Francisco to San Diego, as well as in Florida and Arizona -- a sign that the political struggle will continue if the court rules against them, activists said.
As Proposition 8 opponents held vigils, backers of the measure sent an e-mail asking supporters to "keep our attorneys Ken Starr and Andrew Pugno . . . in your prayers tomorrow as they represent the majority of California who support traditional marriage. Pray also for wisdom for the justices of the court to show respect for the people's decision to enact Proposition 8."
The ruling is due in 90 days.
- Posted in
24 Comments so far
Show AllI really hope to God the justices do not overturn Prop. 8.
I am a full supporter of gay marriage, but for a couple of judges to overrule the will of the people seems to me to be counterproductive.
If we wait an election cycle or two, CA voters will approve of gay marriage. I'd much rather have the voters give legitimacy to gay marriage than a couple of "activist judges" (which is exactly what the right wing will label them if they invalidate the peoples' will).
The Constitution and its original amendments, aka the Bill of Rights, were deliberately and expressly created, in part, to protect the rights of minorities against the "tyranny of the majority".
Judicial review, in turn, exists to ensure that legislation meets Constitutional standards.
The unfortunate fact that the Average Amerikan may have his or her head deeply thrust into his or her own fundaments in these areas is no reason to root for ignorance to prevail.
Yes, there may be overwhelming hard feelings and a reactionary backlash, as the African-American civil rights movement amply demonstrated. But the simple-minded "majority rules" and "activist judges" canards deserve no respect or weight.
Do the Right Thing.
· Yr Obd't Servant
Obama says it well: we can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
I guess it's good we have people like yourself to draw a line in the sand, but personally I have a more practical outlook when it comes to politics. I'm interested in how to best achieve an overall agenda rather than picking fights over every tiny principle.
Say, for example, we had the votes in congress to make gay marriage federally legal. OK - you could do that, but the result would be reactionary (read: fascist) forces coming back into power and advancing their own agenda. We would not get universal health care, or a more equitable tax code, or a green economy.
That's what happened with the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Johnson said "we have just lost the South for a generation", and he was right. Now, personally I think that was in many ways worth the cost. But gay marriage is nowhere near as important as the 1964 Civil Rights Act was. Just my opinion.
You don't sound like a gay person. And you are totally wrong. Gay marriage or some civil semblance of gay marriage is necessary for a huge amount of people to have their full civil rights. It should not even be subject to Acts, just as Black civil rights should never have been subject to Acts or Laws. But Acts and Laws are necessary when a majority of people ignore the Constitution. When are we going to actually start trying to live by our Constitution and Bill of Rights?
"But gay marriage is nowhere near as important as the 1964 Civil Rights Act was."
That's like saying the 1964 Civil Rights Act was no where near as important as Women's Suffrage.
I don't give a f**k for voter legitimacy. That's what kept blacks in subjugation for decades in the South. We are supposed to be guaranteed "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". Heterosexuals, even Mormons who not so long ago practiced multiple marriages, even black Baptists who should be ashamed of themselves, have been able to pursue the above, and have made a mess of marriage. Over half of them drag marriage through the courts when they decide their union was not so holy after all. They do so despite the fact that they have children who are scarred for life. It's time marriage was upheld as a constitutional right for those who really value it.
I don't know how such a measure as Prop 8 could be considered Constitutional under any stretch of the imagination. Something that is deliberately designed to discriminate against one group of people should never be considered Constitutional. To many people in this country have biases created by zealous religious belief's and the clergy that always get reflected in these disgusting Propositions. I personally think what needs to be ban is all of these Props that get put on state ballots every election. It's simply become an avenue for extremists in our society to foist their sick values on the rest of society. It needs to end!
It is important that Prop. 8 is overturned by so-called "activist judges" for the simple fact that votes pertaining to equality issues should not be up for popular vote. It should have been strictly a legislative issue - which really should have been upholding existing laws anyhow. It is unprecedented that a constitutuional amendment was up for majority vote by constituents.
This could become very ugly. For the sake of civility, I believe that it will be smart for the courts to overturn it. At minimum, those Mormon and Catholic churches who funded Prop. 8, rather than feed hungry people or doing missionary work like they are supposed to, should have their tax exempt status revoked for getting involved in something that was none of their business anyhow.
Woe to Catholics, Mormons, or any other organization, or business who funded Prop. 8. It has been decided in California that the names of the churches, organizations, and corporations that funded it is now public record. It is relatively easy to find out the names of individuals who works at these places also. As such, many calls for boycotts have happened, as well as criminal activity has occured to these homophobic fundamentalists - as they rightfully deserve!
Again, it really is best that Prop. 8 is overturned because some in the the GLBT community wil not stand for it being upheld. It may radicalize some to do terrible things to make a point.
It isn't "activist" to simply apply the Bill of Rights!
I do have a question for you though, you say a boycott is in the works and you mention the Catholic and Mormon church-ha i think this is the only time those two have ever agreed on anything-and businesses but what about the Hispanic Community?
IF you are going to boycott all the actors involved then you shouldn't overlook the overwhelming opposition in the Hispanic Community to Gay Marriage....
Don't advocate violence either for it will only harm the movement to equality.
I'm sure Kenn Starr will represent the Larry Craig "majority" who hates fags but loves man-on-man action any time they have a chance, even in men's bathrooms. Sick hipocryts.
Isn't Ken Starr the same pervert who wrote 600 pages of lurid detail of Clinton's blowjobs, all paid by you and me?
Yes, that's him. I had thought not to hear that name again. What a snail.
Whether proposition 8 is a violation of human rights and the constitution can be determined by a simple litmus test. Does the passage of this law prevent homosexual couples from living in marital relations? The answer is no. Many such couples have lived in long term relationships even prior to the Stonewall riot. Human rights cannot be legislated away. Proposition 8 only legalizes homophobia and discrimination.
Laguy83 is wrong to assume that this is only a practical political question. When we allow human rights to be legislated out of existence, we set a precedent for the removal of all related rights. If the government can determine the legitimacy of a loving relationship, it also has the ability to say that marriages between blacks and whites are illegal. If it can sanction the political views of Evangelicals as legitimate, it can inversely declare the political rules of mainline Christians or Catholics to be illegitimate. This proposition is a major attack on our first amendment rights and needs to be brought down.
What's so important about the State or Priests or Rabbis or any authority granting special status to married people, gay, lesbian, or heterosexual? Why do we need to have our loving relationships stamped and approved by the State? The concept is a holdover from old religious laws designed to control the flock. Why not abolish it? Then we can move on to being in love with whomever we please without all the state and religious baggage.
If the German people voted to eliminate the Jews, would that make it OK???
I don't know anything about US laws regarding estate probate but one reason why cases like this are important is not because priests or rabis or whatever fool approves or doesn't, but because in many US jurisdictions rights of survivorship are not recognised.
this is what happens when your beloved government gets involved in people's lives. in good ol times couples went to some priest and they got married. i guess some day some government official thought "hm, let's make some money out of this marriage/divorce business" and here we are now debating who marries whom.
hey, you love somebody go live with him/her/it you got the same rights like everyone else.
whoever wants the government involved in their lives deserves what's coming to them.
Spoken like a true neanderthal. The government is us. Marriage is a recognized contract between two individuals that, in effect, gives them a legal status equivalent to being related---so they automatically have the entire gamut of legal rights that heterosexual couples now take for granted, say, survivorship rights, visitation rights, inheritance, health benefits, tax deductions, etc. The government (which you loathe so much, until you need it---yes, I realize you are a totally self-made man or woman or ape, as it were) if anything, the government loses money on the deal since income taxes collected would diminish and social security benefits would have to be paid; inheritances that might have been unclaimed might also have reverted to government control. (I don't know why I even waste my time on nitwits like this.)
"the goverment is us"? what world do you live in?
The only help I need from the government is to protect me from people who want to kill me and people whio want to steal my stuff. needless to say the gov has failed dismally in bith areas.
also, a more civilized tone would be more appropriate. That means no name calling, moron....
Of course the government is us--who else could it be? Martians? We are responsible for our government. Even in a totalitarian state, the citizens are ultimately responsible for their government. It is citizen participation or lack thereof which results in good or bad government. An unenlightened (shall I call it "neanderthal?", actually, "peasant" would be better) point of view would see itself as having little or no possibility of affecting the circumstances it finds itself in. This is the point of view carefully cultivated by the right wing in this (and other) countries. They want you to feel small. They want you to feel helpless. And, guess what? THEY are the only ones who can help you by "getting the evil government off your back."
The only help you need from the government is for what...? I am curious. What kind of roads do you drive on? Where did you learn to read and write? Who manages flood control, the weather service, disease control, funds major scientific research...? You just want to live in a cave, don't you? Why not move to Somalia if you want to find a place where you can live unencumbered by government? What a pathetic symbol of the right-wing misinformation campaign you are.
A New Ballot Initiative gaining momentum,
Criminalizes Deviant Thinking. A Conservative Bloc of the Electorate is projected to vote this into Law May 17th in California.
Analysts project close to half the populaton will require Processing and Elimination.
Gay couples in California already have all the rights of traditional married couples now.
So now it seems like all they are fighting for is the word marriage. They already made the word gay their own and stole the rainbow as their symbol. So let us straights keep marriage as our own and homosexuals can make up their own word for marriage. Why don't they call it homosexual marriage instead of gay? Here is my answer, it sounds creepy. Another question what do homosexual couples call themselves when they are partners? Do they use the terms bride and groom which are the traditional terms in marriage?
The US is an extraordinary place no less so for the contradictions inherent with the concurrent streams of effected Puritanism and the near complete pornographication of society. In my, admittedly limited, experience of the world I have never seen a society so fascinated and repelled by sexuality at the same time. In Canada we run a close second but thank god we're past the gay marriage tea pot tempest [sun still rises and sets, straight people still get married and reactionaries are still good for a laugh or two].
...and you guys even have a state-sponsored church, if I'm not mistaken. We (the US) supposedly have separation of church and state, and yet, if you scratch beneath the surface of this controversy you'll find the ugly heart and soul of someone wanting to force his or her religion on everybody else. Thankfully, if you look at the demographics of the situation, we will eventually have gay marriage in the country--it's just a matter of time until the older ones who object die off.
I'm not certain what you mean by a state sponsored church unless you mean the Church of England [what we call Anglican and you Episcopal]. We have the same intolerant fringe as you but thankfully some of the more enlightened churches [the United Church of Canada] have not had a problem with supporting gay marriage - even if some of their flock have.
Once our Supreme Court supported gay marriage the whole thing has fallen off the map.