Emotional Board of Supervisors backs Prop. 8 challenge*

The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors voted this afternoon to join a lawsuit filed by the City of Los Angeles, San Francisco and Santa Clara County challenging the constitutionality of Proposition 8, the anti-gay marriage initiative voters passed by a narrow margin this month.

The vote was carried by the board’s three Democrats: Supervisors Gloria Molina and Zev Yaroslavsky, who proposed the board join the lawsuit, and Supervisor Yvonne B. Burke, who voted in support.

Of the two Republicans, Supervisor Michael Antonovich was out of town, and Supervisor Don Knabe left the meeting just as speakers began.

More than a dozen speakers appeared in support of the board’s vote and opposition to Proposition 8, including Los Angeles City Atty. Rocky Delgadillo, San Francisco City Atty. Dennis Herrera and several gay couples. Both Molina and Yaroslavsky, who have officiated at same-sex wedding ceremonies since California legalized them in June, said they acted out of a sense of duty and personal responsibility.

Yaroslavsky pointed out a couple he married who were among those speaking in support of the vote.

“Some of us may ask why the county supervisors would be involved and get so involved in this issue,” Molina said, citing the board's responsibility to supply marriage license, uphold the law and “balance the enforcement of Proposition 8 with recognizing the constitutional right of all our citizens.” Molina added, “On a personal note, I am here to say that the passage of Prop. 8 saddened and angered me on various levels.”

Yarolslavsky noted that was “a close call” given how divided the state and county have been on the question of gay marriage. He said that he was not always a supporter of gay marriage (he supported civil unions instead) but said he “was persuaded” by colleagues and his children.

“It’s very important for the County of Los Angeles to be at the table on this,” he said. “It doesn’t hurt anybody. It doesn’t adversely affect anybody else.”

*Update: Antonovich had earlier said he would not support the legal challenge. His statement: "The appropriate time to have raised legal objections was prior to the election –- not after the people have once again voted on the issue. This move will disenfranchise voters who turned out in record numbers to participate in the process and have their voices heard.”

-- Molly Hennessy-Fiske

Photo: Robert Gauthier/Los Angeles Times

Comments

[scott]

Dante: Yes it's a conspiracy to screw the government And the taxpayers...Oh wait, I'm a taxpayer too! I pay taxes for your children, your children's schools, welfare programs for unwed mothers, etc, etc...If we are considered second class citizens, maybe we should have reduced taxes, since we aren't bringing these children into the world. And heaven forbid we try to adopt these "throw away" children. No, you would rather they rot in the system. Maybe a new ballot should be a limit as to how many children heterosexuals can reproduce. That would be interesting. From one taxpayer to another.

[Paul]

A commenter above stated "liberty will always trump fear" and "the day will come when you will have to account to your God why you discriminated against His children in His name."

I would just like to remind that person that we live in a time where homosexuality is known in almost every household. Fear is based on the unknown, but we know you. You're our neighbors, friends, and family members. This issue isn't about discrimination, it's about love. We love you so much that we must take a stand for how God intended us to live. God is so loving that he allows us to turn away from Him and sin. He gave us that free will. But he also gave us the blessing to glorify Him by rising up against our circumstances and living as He intended.

[jake]

Michael Brown: Are you a member of the Westborough Baptist Church? Come
on now..be honest..

It's good thing we have a thing called Seperation of Church and State. Although religious institutions have a bad habit of forgetting that. Oops, probably just an oversight.

[Facts]

Society pushes the notion that single parents are an aberration, not the norm. As a result, single parents often feel alone and different. In the past 25 years, the number of single-parent families has more than doubled. According to U.S. Census Bureau estimates, 59 percent of United States children will live in a single-parent home at least once during their minor years. That is a majority.

[c_kaye4e]

Okay so im a white woman married to the love of my life a black man. Not long ago this could not have happened because of laws like prop 8, and now its possible. But my mom can not get married because the love of her life is a woman. What sense does that make? Now lets think for a second, the reason my mom can not get married is because people of a religion, she does not follow, tells her she cant. Cmon it is 2008 people time to grow up and realize hate is hate no mater how its dressed. Not everyone believes in God, but for those of you who do tell me something. You believe god created us all, doesn't that include people who are gay.

Anyone who is against same sex marriage, I can not wait to see your faces when (not if) the entire U.S. recognizes marriage as love shared between 2 people no matter race, religion, or sex. Because just like every other attempt to discriminate against people failed, this will too!!!!

[Sui Generis]

I think it's just a matter of time before homosexuals will have their right to marry as well as every other benefit that married heterosexual couples now enjoy. I've read both sides of the argument, and can't help but laugh at the situation because it's like high school all over again! Come on you religious zealots, no matter what you say or how you justify it, even from a religious stand point, you can't say that what you're standing up for is what GOD wants. It's what YOU want. Don't quote scripture, because you cherry pick what supports your agenda while rejecting or closing one eye on things that are inconvenient for you or requires you to put much effort into. It's only human nature. And being human, what gives you the right to speak on GOD's behalf? To judge on GOD's behalf? For as humans, you are LIMITED in your understanding and imperfect.

Homosexuals were around long before the bible was written. We're here, we're queer -GET USE TO IT!

[Dave]

civil rights should not be decided by majority votes. how easy it would be for majorities to be very harsh on defendants in criminal suits! (they scare us)! how quick to take expression rights away from eccentrics and visonaries (they offend us)! since the objections to offering equal protection in terms of marriage seem to be religious, why not take the state out of the business of marriage altogether? That way NO ONE gets married by the state -- only by a private organization (the church or the Kiwanis -- no matter). What the state should do is certify legal unions -- and it would do that for everyone who was able to contract (majority age, not already united with someone else). What's unfair about Prop 8 is that it facially discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation -- which the California Constitution quite properly forbids. Courts are often asked to decide between competing values on the same level (statute to statue or constitutional provision to constitutional provision). It's perfectly appropriate that the Supervisors ask the court to do so in this case. I hope the court decides consistent with the CA S Ct's decision last spring.

[El Guapo]

What do all of these posters mean by "No on Prop 8?" Dudes, it's over and it is a resounding "yes." No liberal supervisor in L.A., SF or beyond is going to overturn this so forget about it and put your efforts into something more civilly constructive.

[Aviles Family]

What is happening to our Country and our State? We the people have spoke loud and clear twice about this issue regarding marriage? The election was fair!!! It saddens me to hear that our elected county supervisors have decided to join a lawsuit against the people of this state. As my young children said they are sore losers and need to grow up!!!

The people of the state of California voted Yes on 8. They will be same voters that will vote to get those leaders out of office who oppose the majority constituents.

[Chas]

What is next on the agenda?

One man two women, Two men one woman,
Two women one man, One woman one pet.

When will it end ?

[Jeffrey]

You've all been brainwashed and indoctrinated by the Mormon Church and various christian groups. I don't think your vote should count if you're brainwashed. Do you? The mormon church is a ridiculous institution. Scientology makes more sense than the mormon "faith." It's just very unfortunate that there are over 700,000 people who have been brainwashed and indoctrinated in California alone. Church and state are separate entities. If you don't vote in honor of our founding fathers and our constitution, you are truly unamerican. VOTE for your country and your people, NOT for bigotry, hatred, and indoctrination. The bible belongs on a shelf, not in our legislature. Not all of us are brainwashed like you.

[IonaTrailer]

THANK YOU SUPERVISOR MOLINA AND YEROVSLAVSKY !!

[Paul]

To Aviles Family:

Your children wouldn't be saying that if they had just had one of their freedoms take away.

[Kate]

(1) Until the past 3 or 4 years, no society, country or culture in recorded history has EVER recognized a 'marriage' between two people of the same sex. Period. "Marriage' is between a man and a woman with the historical purposes of creating a household unit for the procreation and raising of children. (And that does not include using technology to defeat the biological requirement of male/female to produce offspring.) While many couples elect to not have children, in a male/female marriage it is always a possibility. It is not EVER a possiblity that in a same sex relationship that the couple could (without using someone else's egg, sperm or womb) reproduce. It is simply impossible for a same sex couple to ever jointly produce off-spring even if both are fertile.

(2) The provisions of the CA Constitution in issue was written long before the phrase 'gay marriage' was even a thought. Twisting the provsions which were not written with such a thing as gay marriage in mind is contrary to the rules of stuatory and constitutional construction.

(3) Gays are perfectly free to marry on the same terms and conditions as everyone else - they just have to marry a person of the opposite sex.

(4) While the research tends to show that homosexuality is innate (versus learned), many people are born with conditions or traits that keep them from doing the same things as the majority of the society. Get over it and live with it. If you are 5'2", you will never play professional basktball. If you are born blind, you will never paint great works of art. If you are born deaf, you will never compose symphonies. If you are born gay you will never marry since marriage has been defined by 99.99999999999999999999999999+++++% of societies and cultures to be a man and woman. Deal with it. Create a civil partnership either by contract or statute but accept that like the person who is born blind, your life will be different from the majority.

(5) I have never care much about this issue one way or another until the rabid partisans of homosexual 'marriage' began cramming it down people's throats and their behavior after the vote on Proposition 8 is over the top. They didn't lose a right that they have always had - as some of the strident militants shriek. They have never had the right to marry except for a short few months and even then they knew it would be challenged and they would likely lose based upon the prior vote on this issue. Cut the melodrama. Now they have persuaded me (liberal Democrat) to give money to groups who oppose gay marriage.

[Aaryck in AZ]

I miss my old home state. This is why I love you all in CA!! Muah Muah (kisses). I can feel the earth shaking here in AZ from all the up roar about Prop 8. This may finally make CA fall into the ocean (kidding).

Way to go CA (NO ON PROP 8)

[Amanda]

The state had no business granting marriage in the first place - its a religious rite. But somehow separation of church and state didn't matter here, right? You can't call it a 'Christmas Break' or show a nativity scene, but the state can co-opt a religious rite and then can redefine as it pleases. Talk about hypocrisy.

States should only offer domestic partnerships - gay or straight - equal. Let the churches keep the religious rite of marriage and decide on their own whom to marry. As a straight married woman, I would be willing to have the state re-designate my marriage as partnership for legal rights and have my church 'bless' my marriage.

I'm about as middle-of-the-road as you can get on this issue, but the extreme intolerance being shown on the 'no' side is repulsive. If you stick to your religious beliefs, you're labeled a bigot and a hater, pushed out of your job and/or boycotted. Tolerance indeed.

[Kyle Fritz]

So many of you keep saying "Marriage is defined between a Man and a Woman". That is simply not true. Marriage has been redefined many times over the years and not just by the Gay issue. I am still legally married to a man here in California. Ask the people in Massachusettes or Connecticut what the definition of marriage is. Go futher ask all Candadians or Spaniards or several other places in this world where gay marriage is a part of thier culture. The poor kids of the man who said he would never expose his kids to a society that would accept it. Guess they won't be seeing Spain anytime soon!! We all should be scared. We have been tricked by lying media ads, and money to allow discrimination and repeal of rights into our state constitution. That is one slippery slope only disaster can follow. Thank God we had incredible founding fathers and California has smart elected officials to protect us from this travesty.

[Guy]

I live in Florida where we just passed a constitutional amendment barring gay marriage that is much more restrictive than California's Prop 8. The amendment passed with 62% of the vote (60% was required). I'm straight with a wife and two kids. Both my wife and I voted against the amendment because we know gay people who have had their loved one get sick and then been booted out of their life by their loved one's family. Regardless of the fact that I don't support the amendment it is now a part of our state constitution. As such, it is the law of the land. Regardless of whether I agree with it, or not, it is the law. For those who supported Prop 8, I suggest that instead of venting on boards like this about the tactics now being employed by those opposed to the amendment, get organized and make it clear to the California Supreme Court justices that if they once again repeal the will of the people they will be recalled. Recall every one of the justices that declare the constitution unconstitutional.

[Samantha]

Is this the new America? When you vote someone overturns it. If you give your honest opinion you get slapped in the face. If you say what you really think then you have to resign from your job? I voted yes on prop 8. My pastor did not persuade me, and I even read the material. I was not confused when I voted. It was my choice to vote and I did. A woman still has a right to choose right? If I want to vote I still can right. If you want the laws to change go to the courts. Don't hate the people because they used their right to vote. You also have the right to vote, and you lost. We are Americans not barbarians. Martin Luther King was peaceful in his demonstrations. He was not barbaric. If you believe what you believe is true than go to the courts; good luck with that.

[PeterPatnter]

The main problem with Prop. 8 is that it was placed on the ballot ILLEGALLY, and therefore passed illegally.

The Constitution of California specifically requires that structurally fundamental changes in the Constitution CANNOT be created by the "initiative" process, but rather must be created by an alternative process called "revision".

A "revision" has to begin in the California Legislature, and be passed by more than a mere majority. The Prop. 8 proponents KNEW IN ADVANCE that they could not get EVEN a majority in the Legilsature, so they took a sly route, hoping to circumvent the Legislature.

Was that honest? Was that up-front with the electorate? Was that "moral"? Was that the kind of thing we want children to learn to do? Heck no, that was a slimebucket approach to pushing a structurally fundamental change into effect.

Yes it could have been challenged before the vote, but at that point it seemed that rather few voters would buy into such an antihuman-rights change, so such a preelection challenge would have seemed to be a waste of time and money. Only later did it turn out that the choice also was painted in false colors by its proponents, duping many honest voters into voting for the bigoted thing.

In particular Black and Latino voters were deceived into overlooking the minority-rights aspects of the measure, at a time when majority voters were about to turn out in mammoth numbers. So, WHO tried -- and who's STILL trying now -- to overturn the TRUE will of the people?

Let's remember that the entire Legislature (whose vote is required for a Constitutional "revision") has been elected by a vote of the people of California -- so again, WHO was circumventing the will of the people?

Oh, but there's an important question here: was Prop. 8 making a "structurally fundamental" change in California society, and thus in the Constitution? Judging by the intensity of sentiment on both sides of all the comments above, the proposition surely did make a structurally fundamental change -- and therefore should have been presented as a "revision".

[jakeinla]

Kate: Thank you for so eloquently putting it into perspective. Maybe we should just recede into the shadows from whence we came and deal with it. I'm just so glad that people fought for women's rights so that you are able to speak your mind freely on this blog, as well as cast your ballot in elections. Not too long ago women were no more than chattel, bought and sold into marriage, and a time when this sort of thing was considered a radical change to the constitution. Thank you so much for forgetting history and women's suffrage, and your diligent work to keep discrimination from the majority, being forced onto the minority. I'm sure the women's movement would be so proud of you for standing up to discrimination. Way to go Kate! California can certainly learn from you and history. (intended sarcasm)

[Scott]

I am sick of hearing about the "will of the people" being overturned: When the "people" vote to discriminate against a minority group like gays, it is the court's JOB to protect the minority by overturning the prejudicial, hateful law--or in this case, the divisive and bigoted illegal constitutional revision that is Prop. 8. You don't get to take away civil rights by popular vote. PERIOD.

Also, civil marriage is NOT a religious institution. Once government begins issuing marriage licenses, the religious aspect is removed. You have NO right to legislate your religious beliefs or to use them as a basis to deny other people rights. End of story. I hope the courts do the right thing again and overturn Prop. 8; it's time to stop using religion as an excuse to discriminate.

[Stacy A.]

God, as it turns out, does not care about gender, in marriage or otherwise.
Let's word it like a logical proof:
The Bible is the inerrant Word of God.
The plain language of the Bible means what it means, and needs no fancy explanation.
Later sections of the Bible laying out the Word of God overrule any contradictory previous sections.
Galatians 3:28 (KJV):
"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus."
This clearly means, God draws no distinctions of race, nationality, social class, nor gender ... "ye are all ONE in Christ Jesus."
Since God doesn't concern Himself with race, nationality, nor gender, then it means that in marriage, God is not concerned about gender either.

If God were so concerned about gender in marriage, then that verse should have ended with "ONE in Jesus Christ, except that marriage is between a man and a woman." But it doesn't say that! So therefore God is opposed to Proposition 8!

This means that The Roman Church and the Mormons are clearly sinning against God's word. If we get another bad hurricane, it will be because the Roman Church and the Mormons have departed from God!!! (paraphrasing the wacky preachers who blamed Katarina on gays)

[Mel W.]

To Noneck and others...Marriage IS NOT a religious institution. Atheist get married all the time. A marriage license is issued by the GOVERNMENT not by a Church. You can decide to have a religious ceremony if you like, or you can get a non-secular ceremony at the courthouse or where ever you like.

So please stop being brainwashed by others and learn for yourself. Remember, the bible has been used to deny women their rights, blacks their rights, and "non-christians" their rights. The state can not continue to discriminate based on religion, no matter how many of you vote. (and by the way, since the absentee ballots have been counted, the new tally is 50% to 50%!!!!)

If the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was put up for a popular vote at that time would it have passed? NO, so just because a bunch of people are voted to discriminate doesn't mean it is right. We will win in the End!

[Mel W.]

To Chas >

That already exists, it's called THE MORMONS!