News


On anniversary of marriage ruling, both sides await Prop. 8 decision

Today is the one-year anniversary of a California Supreme Court ruling that allowed same-sex marriage - only to be struck down six months later by a voter initiative that made a ban on gay marriage part of the state constitution.

Supporters and opponents of gay marriage are now awaiting a second State Supreme Court decision on whether the initiative itself, enacted by voters Nov. 4 as Proposition 8, was constitutional.

The court heard arguments on the case in San Francisco on March 5 and must issue a ruling no later than June 3.

Kate Kendell, executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights in San Francisco, said, "The past year has been a glorious and crushing roller coaster."

Kendell said her group is "fervently hopeful" that the court will overturn Proposition 8.

In the meantime, another gay rights group, Equality California, has launched preparations for a possible ballot initiative in 2010 that would reinstate same-sex marriage in the event that the court upholds Proposition 8.

Opponents of same-sex marriage say they are prepared to battle such a measure.

Ron Prentice, chairman of Protectmarriage.com, a coalition that sponsored Proposition 8, said, "We're grateful that the people responded in November to the court's decision of a year ago."

Prentice said, "We're more energized than ever to continue to maintain traditional marriage in the law."

A total of six states now allow or are about to allow same-sex marriage.

Gay and lesbian marriages are legal in Massachusetts, Connecticut and Iowa. Laws permitting same-sex marriage will take effect in Maine and Vermont in September.

On Thursday, New Hampshire Gov. John Lynch said he will sign a same-sex marriage law after the state Legislature makes some changes. The New Hampshire law would go into effect Jan. 1.

--Bay City News Service

Comments

Posted by Qwerty, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 16, 2009 at 11:04 pm


I don't think the courts will overturn this. The issue was put out for a vote and the measure passed. If the courts overturn prop8, it will set a bad precedent whereby people can complain and overturn any measure. It would make voting pointless if it were not upheld. It passed so leave it alone.


Posted by Cholo, a resident of Livermore
on May 17, 2009 at 8:31 am

After reading your stance re: henry and his sexual abuse of young girls, nothing you say matters. It's never acceptable for adults to sexually abuse children. Understand?

Why not just take a pill and chill.

You're sad.


Posted by Qwerty, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 18, 2009 at 9:12 am

Cholo,

You are the sad one for constantly impersonating other people and making pointless comments while people are trying to have an intellectual discussion. If you cannot contribute to the discussion then leave the thread.


Posted by bel, a resident of Val Vista
on May 18, 2009 at 12:04 pm

I hope they over turn it, this is something that never should have made it onto the ballot. It set a bad precedent and if its not overturned who's rights will be put on the ballot next?


Posted by Solution, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 18, 2009 at 12:41 pm

Here's a possible solution to this dilemma:

The state should not be in the business of defining marriage.

The state should sanction civil unions, not marriages. Marriage should be a religious ceremony, with no State oversight.

If homosexuals want to unite, and have protections set forth by The State, then unite in a civil ceremony. The same goes for heterosexual unions.

All previously classified marriages in California should be re-classified as civil unions.


Posted by Tim, a resident of Valley Trails
on May 18, 2009 at 1:18 pm

Solution,

I've been pretty neutral about this whole thing. I would have to agree with you. That does sound like a good compromise. However, it's only a compromise as both parties might still feel wronged. I like it though...


Posted by PToWN94566, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 18, 2009 at 1:22 pm

PToWN94566 is a registered user.

Isn't it funny that people who are against same sex marriage are the one's who don't comprehend "Don't marry a gay person then"? And since so many people use religion as a reason to why gay people shouldn't be allowed to wed, it's also funny to point out that many of these bibles religious followers use also don't know that King James, himself, was gay. There shouldn't be laws at all stating that "if your gay it's called a union and if you're straight it's a marriage."

There seems to be an issue of control as well with this Prop 8 thing. Do supports of Prop 8 think that by controlling who can and who can't get married will "weed" out homosexuals? It's a sad day that in 2009 people are still fighting for their rights, and this is all based on love and whether or not they can receive the same privileges others get. Shame, shame, shame on my neighbors and anybody else who voted yes on Prop 8. No one has the right to judge, especially people who aren't even involved in a gay couples life.


Posted by Cholo, a resident of Livermore
on May 18, 2009 at 2:06 pm

qwerty...you're busted! You still think that miss henry is a good guy and you can't understand why people have strong feelings about anybody sexually abuse young girls.

I don't care where you stand on same sex marriage, you can marry an apricot tree if you like.
The controversy re: same sex marriage is going to continue for quite some time but the nation will eventually come around to accepting it.

qwerty = very very sad soul...hahahahahahahahaha....and strange!

ps do you have proof from the CIA that i impersonate other people?


Posted by AVHS Dad, a resident of Stoneridge Park
on May 18, 2009 at 3:50 pm

AVHS Dad is a registered user.

Apricots? Hmmmmmm!

Marriage IS a basic human right, and if you're going to deny a basic human right you'd better have a darn good reason. It was only a few decades ago that these same arguments went to the supreme court over interracial marriage. Legally, I don't see how same sex marriage (between adults) can be denied.


Posted by PJ, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 18, 2009 at 6:57 pm

AVHS Dad (registered user),

Looks like you have your own definition of what human rights are just as you have your own definition of what human decency is. Per your own posting: Web Link

Two postings, one person, one mindset.


Posted by anon, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 19, 2009 at 9:15 am

First, let me say that I am a hetero married female. I don't understand why gay marriage/legal union (whatever you want to call it) is an issue at all. Aren't we all equal under the Constitution? I have a female friend in S CA who has 2 biological children (insemination) with her lesbian partner. They are a happy, loving family of 4, so what's wrong with that? They are happier than many hetero familes I know. And more to the point, how are they hurting ME? Why should I feel threatened by them or otherwise want to deny their right to live their lives the way they choose? Why don't we focus on important issues, like education, global warming, and health care?


Posted by Richard, a resident of Country Fair
on May 19, 2009 at 9:22 am

Gay partners have the same rights under the law as married couples do but now they want god and churches to recognize that they are married under god which is something that Jesus's teaching and the bible is against. Gay's should not be granted god's grace of marriage under no circumstances. California is a bit unusual I admit but when left to the voters and the polls 70% of americans are against marriage of gays.


Posted by condoning perversion, a resident of Parkside
on May 19, 2009 at 9:23 am

...until there's a cure...........


Posted by Human, a resident of Danbury Park
on May 19, 2009 at 9:31 am

Anon, for some people, this is an important issue.

I agree with another poster that the state should get out of the marriage business and stick to contractual obligations via civil unions. Marriage should be a religious or non/unreligious ceremony.


Posted by bel, a resident of Val Vista
on May 19, 2009 at 10:11 am

Richard: I'm pretty sure people in OTHER religions get married and so do athiests. You can get married in a church, you can also get married in a courthouse. Marriage is not just reserved for Christianity.


Posted by AVHS Dad, a resident of Stoneridge Park
on May 19, 2009 at 12:52 pm

AVHS Dad is a registered user.

PJ: do you have a point?

Richard: No, gay partners in civil unions/domestic partnerships do NOT have the same rights as married couples. These substitutes attempt to grant some of the same rights as marriage, but those rights vary by state, if a state recognizes them at all.

Also, where in California's laws was there anything that forced "god and churches" to recognize gay marriages? Please!


Posted by Fred, a resident of Danville
on May 19, 2009 at 1:39 pm

AVHS Dad,

you are in the 30% who are for gay marriage and it lost to the voters.............get over it or if you want to marry a gay person or has a friend who does please move to Canada.


Posted by PJ, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 19, 2009 at 2:32 pm

AVHS Dad,

The point was expressed:

"Looks like you have your own definition of what human rights are just as you have your own definition of what human decency is. Per your own posting: Web Link

Two postings, one person, one mindset."


If you don't get it, then well, you don't get it.


Posted by AVHS Dad, a resident of Stoneridge Park
on May 19, 2009 at 3:03 pm

AVHS Dad is a registered user.

PJ: Thanks for the clarification.

Fred, where did you get "30%"???
The results were 52% to 48%, not exactly a landslide.
In Alameda county the results were 38% for, 62% against.
Contra Costa was a bit closer at 45% for, 55% against.

Move to Canada? No thanks. I'd rather see things change in our country. Again, it was only a few decades ago that the Supreme Court struck down state laws against interracial marriage. It amazes me that such a short time ago there were states where I couldn't have married my wonderful wife. (yes, I am straight)

Please tell me again what the justification is for taking away a basic human right from this group of people?


Posted by John, a resident of Castlewood
on May 19, 2009 at 3:14 pm

AVHS Dad,

So if a marriage is not between a man and a woman but can be between and man and a man or a woman and a woman could it also be between a man and 2 women, 3 women, 4 women. Can I marry my dog or my cat or how about 2 dogs and a cat to give it some variety. Give me a break this is not interacial marriage which by the way is between and man and a woman but something far more precious.


Posted by John, a resident of Castlewood
on May 19, 2009 at 3:17 pm

While we are at it. Isn't life a fundamental human right? I bet you are for gay marriage and against pouring some water down a terrorists throat but fully supportive of abortion. what are you thoughts on the death penalty?


Posted by AVHS Dad, a resident of Stoneridge Park
on May 19, 2009 at 3:38 pm

AVHS Dad is a registered user.

John: What the heck...
Yes.
Yes.
No. I'm fine with torture. Especially if there's a reasonable chance it will prevent a future incident.
Yes, up to a point. Where were you in the 60's? Whether legal or not, there will be abortions. Hey, when's the last time you went to a funeral for a miscarriage?
Depending on the circumstances, I would happily pull the lever, press the button, hold the rope...

How about you?


Posted by AVHS Dad, a resident of Stoneridge Park
on May 19, 2009 at 3:50 pm

AVHS Dad is a registered user.

John:
You said "could it also be between a man and 2 women, 3 women, 4 women". I'm reminded of a line from the movie The Gods Must Be Crazy. As I remember it, one guy is giving romantic advice to another and says "I should know, I have 7 wives". The other guy says "If you have 7 wives, how come you're always with me?". He says " I know how to marry them. Nobody knows how to live with them".
Dogs and cats? John, what kind of sites do you visit???
Precious? PLEASE!!!! Reality check. The way some people get married and divorced at the drop of a hat, fighting over kids like property...You want to outlaw something, how about Pop Star Marriages?


Posted by PToWN94566, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 19, 2009 at 8:43 pm

PToWN94566 is a registered user.

Some interesting "facts" that people have used on this thread. And I use the word "fact" very loosely. They numbers in California were much closer than one responders answer- the 52 to 48 was the final number after all polls counted their ballots. Take into consideration as well the youth that are almost of voting age and the twenty something year old who are for same sex marriage but have not registered to vote. Something else people seem to forget is that many of the people who say no to same sex marriage are much older than the generation that will be running our country in the near future. I recently read a Gallup Poll (on CNN); there findings were that people people in their 20's and 30's were in fact in favor of same sex marriage while those opposed were in the 40's, 50's and 60's, with the numbers going up as the age increased.

Some of the other ideas presented on this thread are a bit nasty- a cure??? How nice to be categorized as someone who can infect other people, especially since this is about two people who love each other and it not being about you! This is about some stupid book people follow because they need absolute "truth" in what they want to believe. For "God's" sake, if we were to follow the bible literally, women would be told what to do, wouldn't be allowed to speak in church, and we wouldn't eat shrimp. (If you can't follow that, then you're probably not as knowledgeable about the bible than you previously though). AVHS Dad does have interesting ideas as well- there are MANY heterosexual couples who simply get married just for the benefits since the woman became pregnant. Isn't that against church beliefs? Shouldn't those people be banned from getting married in a church as well? As for the dogs and cats relationship- that's pretty sick. Leave it up to xenophobic people who try and blast their ideas onto others to make nasty comments like that.


Posted by Peter, a resident of Livermore
on May 19, 2009 at 8:55 pm

PToWN94566,

you sound a bit liberated so explain the following, a man and a man can not concieve a child no more than a woman and a woman so if it is legalized why can"t a man or a woman have multiple spouses as it is possible to love more than one person at a time. I think the vote was 52 to 48 in California and 4 percent is a big number in a very liberal state. Gallup shows the number to be something along the lines of 65 to 35 nationally and today released a figure that pro life is now 51 percent versus 42 percent for pro death.


Posted by one man + one woman alone, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 20, 2009 at 12:24 am

Compromising sexual morality is a slippery slope. What seems horrid today is just a slow ticking clock until reality if you give in. Saying "no" the first time is the easiest to all problems. It is better to strive for ideals than cave to moral relativity and live with the resultant. Men are not designed to be with men. Women are not designed to be with women. This is not complex. Homosexual men and women were either sexually assaulted as children or did not bond with their same-sex parent. This is not rocket-science, nor is it fear-based or dogma. It is simple logic and only short of psychobabble. People will take things as far as you allow them to. How far are we willing to allow sexuality to go? Will we keep our children off limits to pedophiles that just want to express themselves? Sexual immorality is a slippery slope...


Posted by PToWN94566, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 20, 2009 at 12:52 am

PToWN94566 is a registered user.

Wow and to think that some of these people could be my neighbors is actually a scary thought. I don't think I've ever heard such a false statement in my entire life: "Homosexual men and women were either sexually assaulted as children or did not bond with their same-sex parent." Let's clear some things up first- where did you get these facts? From a book that was written in 1903? Being gay is not the same thing as pedophilia; my suggestion is to go research the topic of Child Abuse and you'll learn about that.

Peter 4% is too large of a number, yes, but do you remember how much larger the gap was not to long before this last election? The numbers are closing in and it'll only be a matter of time before it is legalized. When it is, are people such as yourself or people with this extremely strong, xenophobic ideals going to come to my wedding on some future date? No you won't because the matter of the fact is people with such hatred in their life wouldn't even be invited. Would these people then stand outside and protest? Do as you please but be prepared for large groups of happy people that are having the time of their lives. Life isn't about producing children and love and marriage being between only a man and a woman. If that's what you want out of life, great- do what makes you happy. But don't try and control people of telling them how they can or can't live their lives; we all have the option of living happily ever after, no matter what sexual preference we ARE. This whole bible crap is a way of controlling lifestyles that people think are immoral. In reality, people need to get over themselves and let people be. Let them be happy, let them get married and have rights. If a good portion of states legalize same sex marriage, it'll only be a matter of time before it's taken to the national level. People act so scared over this when in reality you're just scared of yourselves; scared to be happy for two people that are "different" from the rest of society, or quite possibly- scared of how you may react if a child comes out to you. I pray the day that when a teenager comes out to their parents that those parents aren't the one's who shun them away from the family.

Lastly, which I still have yet to even read or hear an answer to, how does a gay marriage effect you if you're not even involved in those two people's lives? It's not like you are grocery shopping one Saturday afternoon and feel some pain in your right toe; "Ouch, a gay person got married." That's absurd.


Posted by Mike, a resident of Livermore
on May 20, 2009 at 6:37 am

PToWN94566,

They and we are all your neighbors and as much as people nod when you talk inside and when you are not around they think you are one sick dude and please leave our country and do you brokeback stuff someplace else.


Posted by AVHS Dad, a resident of Stoneridge Park
on May 20, 2009 at 7:49 am

AVHS Dad is a registered user.

PToWN94566: Well said! I don't believe the bible is "crap". But I do believe a lot of people are very selective about what they decide to focus on. The bible has some very harsh words for divorce, remarriage and adultery to name a few, but why focus on that when they can keep those darn homosexuals from getting married!!! (SHESH!)

Mike: Why are you so concerned about what goes on behind closed doors between two people that love each other? Maybe because you can't get that image out of your head? Hmmmmm? I saw Brokeback Mountain...with my WIFE. Not my choice at all, but I'll see ANY movie with my wife.


Posted by Cholo, a resident of Livermore
on May 20, 2009 at 8:27 am

PToWN94566 and AVHS Dad,

You are both idiots and have drank to much kool aid or smoked to much of something. Please stay off of these posts and if you do so please use your real names so we know who you are and can keep our children and pets away from you.


Posted by AVHS Dad, a resident of Stoneridge Park
on May 20, 2009 at 9:34 am

AVHS Dad is a registered user.

Me thinks that be a "Cholo" impersonator.


Posted by Cholo, a resident of Livermore
on May 20, 2009 at 4:01 pm

Yup...another pretend Cholo wannabe! BUSTED....hahahahahhahahahhahaa

The Realer McCoy!


Posted by Charles, a resident of Dublin
on May 20, 2009 at 4:07 pm

Cholo and AVHS dad,

you two freakin for each oter?


Posted by AVHS Dad, a resident of Stoneridge Park
on May 20, 2009 at 4:30 pm

AVHS Dad is a registered user.

Why, you wanna watch?

Nope, I'm VERY happy with my wife.
But Cholo rocks!
Look how many people wanna be him!


Posted by AVHS Dad, a resident of Stoneridge Park
on May 22, 2009 at 2:41 pm

AVHS Dad is a registered user.

The California Supreme Court announced today that they will announce their decision on Tuesday, May 26th. Whatever their decision, I'm sure it will be appealed to the US Supreme Court. Tick, tick, tick...


Posted by Thanks for the info, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 22, 2009 at 2:49 pm

Good heads-up, AVHS Dad. They can't do anything. We voted it in. Done deal. It's another example of a special interest group screwing the public. Velvet Maffia. Take it to Massachusettes.


Posted by Bob, a resident of Bonde Ranch
on May 22, 2009 at 3:08 pm

AVHS Dad and thanks for the info,

Yes they said that it will be announced on Tuesday and it is expected that the court will rule on the side of the results of prop 8 but might honor in some form the 18,000 "marriages" which took place as unions of some type. If true and because it was an amendment to constitution it cannot be appealed to the US Supreme Court but rather if pursued can go on as a ballot measure but not until 2012 at the earliest.


Posted by thanks for the info, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 22, 2009 at 9:49 pm

I think the entire state is starting to see the detrimental effects of special interest groups. This one is no different. Even if put back on the ballot, it won't pass. There are just too many people that when in their own homes, say it like it is.

There is always a consequence to shoving things down people's throats. The velvet maffia bullying of everyone that doesn't "tolerate" them (read: accept, legitimize, jump up and down cheering...) by mischaraterizing them as "hateful" "homophobic", etc. Name call all you want...you're not making any political friends.

Prop 8 will stand...well beyond 2012


Posted by Cholo, a resident of Livermore
on May 24, 2009 at 10:35 pm

Charles or is it Carla? hahahahahahahahaha...creepo!

There's a cucaracha somewhere in this world waiting to make love to you...smelly goon!


Posted by Cholo, a resident of Livermore
on May 25, 2009 at 9:29 am

Cholo, likes big burrito


Posted by AVHS Dad, a resident of Stoneridge Park
on May 26, 2009 at 3:29 pm

AVHS Dad is a registered user.

Bob: Yup, you're right about the fact that it can't be appealed. Good call on decision too.
I believe the one dissenting opinion stated that Prop. 8 violated the 14th ammendment, much the same as the court decided in 1948's Perez vs Sharp which threw out California's anti-miscegenation laws. At least we don't have to worry about those laws coming back since they were all thrown out by the US Supreme Court in 1963's Loving vs Virginia. Trouble is, the arguments for those anti-interracial marriage laws had arguments strikingly similar to those against same sex marriage. I don't see this ban lasting much longer.


If you were a member and logged in you could track comments from this story.

Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: *

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Understanding Early Decision in College Admissions
By Elizabeth LaScala | 1 comment | 2,231 views

New heights for NIMBYs
By Tim Hunt | 30 comments | 1,448 views

When those covering the news become the news
By Gina Channell-Allen | 1 comment | 966 views

Earthquake Insurance
By Roz Rogoff | 3 comments | 796 views