Southern California -- this just in

« Previous Post | L.A. NOW Home | Next Post »

Emotional Board of Supervisors backs Prop. 8 challenge*

Gloria Molina and Zev Yaroslavsky

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 () | Archives (336)

Stacy A above, you are so typical of the excessive emotes supporting perversion because you cannot comprehend the simple structure of language. Your citation of Galatians 3:28 (KJV), “...for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." ... blah, blah, blah is quite unfinished. This brainiac, happens to be a CONDITIONAL qualifier. In other words feeble brain, IF you ARE in accordance with God's will, Laws and Commandments THEN "ye are all ONE in Christ Jesus."
And why is this qualified statement? Pay attention; Christ also said, "Think NOT that I am come to destroy the LAW, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill." (Matt 5:17) Didja miss this one too; "For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in NO WISE PASS from the law, till all be fulfilled. (Matt 5:18) Now to PROVE (Biblically) that you sodomites HATE God: "...Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind." This means to NOT be given over to reprobate, i.e. SODOMITE behavior. Next time, first; LEARN to read in context.

We live in a dictatorship. We have voted twice on this issue. The elitist, corrupt politicians, and "judges" who think we are stupid want to steal our rigts away by voiding our votes.

Bottom line is this..... it all revolves around the poor job that men as fathers have done raising their children.... being at times a provider but not truely having a relationship with their kids.....Most of my gay friends all have this in common..... Men we have failed and now we are reaping our reward.

I'm going to take a little time to address some concerns raised on this forum by Kate, simply because her views summarise the worst of the misconceptions about same-sex marriage.

(1) Actually, same-sex marriages are recorded from before the advent of Christianity. There are also recorded same-sex marriages within Christian churches between the 8th and 18th centuries. It's not new.

If marriage was solely about reproduction, then you should be banning all infertile pairings from marrying (including for reasons of ill health or age), as well as dissolving the marriages of couples who don't have children. Why aren't you? Because marriage is not just about reproduction. Moreover, why shouldn't reproductive technology count? (And I'll note that, in fact, with current technological developments, two women could have a child without the need for a sperm donor.) Should couples who need IVF treatment be banned from marrying?

(2) The provisions of the CA Constitution were indeed written before the idea of same-sex marriage. I believe that was one of the arguments used by the State Supreme Court to justify extending the protection to homosexuals - the spirit of the constitution was to prevent discrimination, and the specified groups reflected the period in which the constitution was written.

(3) How would you like it if I told you that you that your sexuality had just been banned - but don't worry, you've still got the same rights as everyone else, you just have to marry a woman? By that argument, the interracial couples of the 19th century had no cause for complaint - they could marry any member of their own race that they liked. Did that stop it being discrimination? No.

(4) Perhaps if you are born 5'2'', you'll never be a professional basketball player - does that mean we can ban you from basketball courts? If you're born blind, can we ban you from art classes? That's still discrimination. And not even analogous, since homosexual couples are quite capable of loving relationships analogous to those experienced by straight couples.

(5) How exactly have the opponents of Proposition 8 been cramming their values down your throat? I'd think it was rather the opposite - you crammed your values down their throats, declared their relationships illegitimate and of a lower value - and then acted surprised when they complained. Don't get high-and-mighty on us. We're not the ones taking away rights.

We don't have colored and non-colored locker rooms because there is no fundamental difference between them. But we still have men and women locker rooms. Can a man claim equal rights and walk in the women's locker room? No, there are differences between men and women. There are differences between two men and two women. There are differences between two men and one man/one woman. There are differences between two women and one man/one woman. Should marriage counselors be retrained to deal with male couples, and then retrained again for female couples? Should child psychologists be retrained to deal with male parents, and then retrained again for female parents? These are the kinds of issues Massachusetts is dealing with. This is not a religious issue but a logical one. Apples are not oranges, but our state tells us apples must be oranges and now we have to somehow sell apples as oranges.

fredc, is there some point to all your hypothetical questions?

Most reasonably agree that to denigrate a whole sector of our society and expect higher deference in return is unrealistic. Contrary to what proponents of 8 may want everyone to believe, the gay community "did not start this fight". For that matter, neither did Gavin Newsome nor "renegade judges" nor . . . . None-the-less, clearly, gays and others, such as myself who support equality and liberty for all, now find ourselves embroiled in the fight of our lives: Ardently defending our Constitution and passionately protecting everyone's rights.

Prop 8 supporters equate legal challenges aimed at overturning it with the trampling of majority's will, expressing much angst over it. They offer up vivid descriptions of emotions ranging from sadness to anger and even thinly veiled threats of "wait and see what will happen if it's overturned". Their postings are notably devoid of empathy or compassion toward those whose Consititutional protections they annihilated and whose basic human rights they decimated by means of a legally questionable initiative passed via a deceptive campaign.

Consequently, based upon their current behavior, their criticism of No on 8 protesters makes me wonder: Honestly, if roles were reversed, would they react differently? Seeing those who've stripped their rights smugly holding signs saying, "God doesn't like you the way you are" or "You're going to hell", would they not feel hated? Thusly relegated to 2nd-class citizenship, would they not pursue it as a civil rights issue? When physical violence is inflicted upon them while they are peaceably protesting without consequence to the perpetrator, would they not feel discriminated against?

Answers to these questions may be forthcoming sooner than you think: Prop 8 proponents claim they are protecting marriage. Yet, ironically, if and when our Consitution's equal protections clause is enforced by our courts, heterosexual marriages will be nullified. We will all then gain first-hand understanding of and far greater sympathy for our same-sex citizenry's plight. Or naught, where Prop 8 proponents are concerned. They will likely continue to blame others for heterosexual marriage's demise: Gavin Newsom, "renegade judges", "disloyal public servants", pre-Prop-8 same-sex marriages, etc. However, odds are they won't "just accept the verdict" when it comes to defending their own marriages.

Rights being taken away? It was done to slaveholders.
Legislating morality? We have laws against murder, child molestation, etc. If homosexuals are upset that many equate homosexuality with other moral issues that are disapproved, talk to those in these other groups society has said NO to at their outlandish requests. They probably feel the same way.

Homosexuals come from the point of view that it's all nature, not nurture. And the classic, why would ANYONE choose a a lifestyle that is looked down on?
People make choices all the time, to murder, to abuse children, etc. They also have the choice NOT to do those things, rather than explain it away to biology.

Let the democrate process run it's course. No matter which side of Pro. 8 you are on. IIt is wrong to support the Pro. 8 and keep silent on the harrassment, vandalism and intiimidation because people voted in the decomcrate process according to their concious. I votred but now I see that if ever the homosexual community would be the majority they will be the begots, promoters of hate and intalorance. We are seeing a preview. The supervisors are elected to protect all side. Shame on you

Why do we even have elections? Whatever side of the issue you are on THE PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN! If you want to change it, have another vote, our tax dollars should not go to this.

Any of you out there who think homosexuality is a choice are really telling us that you could choose to be gay. What you are really saying is that you ARE gay, but have been suppressing it. Any gay person, or ACTUALLY straight person, knows that they could never choose to be any way but what they are. I'm straight, and I could never choose to be gay. So, the truth is that you bigots are just letting the world know that you have denial issues. SHame on you for seeking to oppress your own kind.

« | 1 2 ... 8 9 10 11 12 13 14


Recommended on Facebook


In Case You Missed It...


About L.A. Now
L.A. Now is the Los Angeles Times’ breaking news section for Southern California. It is produced by more than 80 reporters and editors in The Times’ Metro section, reporting from the paper’s downtown Los Angeles headquarters as well as bureaus in Costa Mesa, Long Beach, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Riverside, Ventura and West Los Angeles.
Have a story tip for L.A. Now?
Please send to newstips@latimes.com
Can I call someone with news?
Yes. The city desk number is (213) 237-7847.


Get Alerts on Your Mobile Phone

Sign me up for the following lists: