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

[Bill]

If a group of neighbors took a vote to make you sell your house and leave a neighborhood you lived in because they didn't like you- would you do it? So it's the will of the people that I be denied my civil rights, because the person I love is another man? And this is legal because you took a vote to make it so? NO! You may NOT take my rights away with a majority vote, and hide yourself behind a kind of pseudo-moral pose, as if some right of yours had been infringed on!

[jchantgayguy]

Its too easy. All Americans should be able to have the full rights granted when a marriage license is issued. Call it a civil union and let the state issue the same license to all. If you want to go into a church and tie the knot and call it a "marriage", go for it..

But the union whatever you call it should be complete with all the same rights regardless of whats on the printed license.

[Mark In Irvine]

Prop 8 was a religious based provision that discriminates against people on the impermissible bases of religion (or absence of religion) and sexual orientation. Gay people pay taxes just as we straight people do, and they have just as much right to "marry" as the next person. I for one hope that the legal challenges succeed: the challenge is that Prop 8 operates to "revise" the state constitution and required a 2/3 vote of the legislature before being put to the voters. Passage of Prop 8 was a shameful exercise of the privilege of voting - the religious quasi-majority flexing their power to deny a minority the rights the majority enjoy. Disgraceful and un-American, just like in the bad-old-days of laws against marriage between Hispanics and Whites, between Asians and Whites, and between Blacks and Whites.

[Michael Singer]

Has anyone ever read the 14th Amendment? Voters cannot vote on the rights of other citizens. They can vote *for* citizens when they run for office, and can vote *for* initiatives that take money from one project and put it toward another, which means that it adversely affects one interest group while priviliging another. But voters cannot directly vote against the rights of other citizens. This is called" tyranny of the majority" and it has *always* been the court's purpose to make sure minority rights are protected.

This won't be legislating from the bench, a phrase repeated so much that it has no clear meaning. Rather, it will be the courts doing their job.

[william kraal]

HOW WOULD YOU MARRIED STRAIGHTS WHO VOTED YES ON PROP 8 LIKE IT IF WE GAYS COULD VOTE TO GET YOU UNMARRIED???

[Miguel]

What a bunch of sore loser..........What is this! First it was the gay's getting mad because they thought they were going to win and they can't accept to lose. Then they go crying to the judges AGAIN! Then they go crying to the 40 liberal democrates and then to the Governor and now the LA superivsor are getting into the act. This whole group stinks to high heaven. They actually want to force to change the WILL of the people. This isn't the US I thought I knew about.

[Dew]

The issue with Prop 8 is that many of you voted yes based on your religious beliefs which, in California, cannot trump the state constitution. When it comes to individual rights, the majority cannot rule. If that were the case, I would still be a slave in this country.

Since many of you used religion your belief of religion to support Prop 8 means this law will be overturned and people have every right to protest against your wanting to impose your religious beliefs on individual rights and freedoms. I support the gay community in their fight and will boycott businesses who's owners supported and donated money to Prop 8.

I used to go to El Coyote every Sunday for dinner but I will find another local Mexican restaurant to spend my dollars.

[Alex Beckers]

Government needs to get out of the marriage business.

[John]

1) The No on 8 people can challenge in court, but they will lose. The only initiative in California history that was ruled a REVISION of the state constitution as opposes to an AMENDMENT contained THOUSANDS OF WORDS AND MULTIPLE SECTIONS. Prop 8 contains a MERE 14 OPERABALE WORDS. It's not even a close call. But they can try.
.
2) Whether or not it is the agenda of the gay community in general to force teaching of gay marriage in the schools, it will happen if we allow gay "marriage". Soon after gay "marriage" becomes established in California, at least one gay person (and one is all it will take) will sue claiming discrimination because their first-grade child's textbooks, story books, etc. have stories based around heterosexual married couples (something like "Mr. and Mrs. Jones owned a farm ...") but not based on a gay couple ("Mister and Mister Jones ...). They will sue because, as they claim, gay marriage is a "fundamental right", and to exclude it from the curriculum is a violation of that right. AND THEY WILL WIN.
.
3) The same logic applied to my comment #2 above will apply in many aspects of life to numerous to list, or even to imagine.
.
4) NATURE has determined that children are born to HETEROSEXUALS (or at least those who partake in heterosexual activity). If RELIGION happens to agree with NATURE, that hardly changes NATURE or is the fault of religion. Sorry, Prop 8 opponents, but it is those who wish to pretend that homosexual activity (activity that CANNOT produce offspring) is equivalent to heterosexual activity. This fantasy is AT ODDS WITH NATURE. That seems obvious enough.
.
5) Californians have already bent over backwards (no pun intended, but accidental pun kind of funny) to give those who chose to live homosexual lifestyles rights equivalent to married couples. To the extent, if any, that this is not true most of even those who voted in favor of Prop 8 support this. I support it, but I’m beginning to have second thoughts about that. “Give an inch …”
.
6) Where a radical change in the basic structure of society is proposed, the burden to show that the change is beneficial is on he who favors the change and NOT on he who favors the status quo. In this case, it will take at least one generation (the period of time to see the results of legally sanctioned gay marriages) of experimentation to see the effects of the proposed change. Massachusetts, with a population of 6 million provides a testing population more than large enough for the experiment without risking the bulk of this United States of America and its great society on the experiment.
.
7) I would be surprised that more than a very small percentage of even homosexuals would believe that the BEST, HEALTHIEST AND MOST IDEAL HOME for a child is that of a LOVING MOTHER AND FATHER. Although many homes fall short of this for lack of love, a mother, or a father, it remains the BEST, HEALTHIEST AND MOST IDEAL. This is what the word “MARRIAGE” represents. Sorry, homosexuals, but the best you can provide within a homosexual relationship is less than the best possible. It is in the INTEREST OF SOCIETY AND CHILDREN to uphold “MARRIAGE” as this BEST, HEALTHIEST, AND MOST IDEAL HOME.
.
8) Whatever the cause of homosexuality – be it genetic, environmental, or whatever – I empathize with those who feel this and especially those who valiantly struggle to resist this urge. Some here and elsewhere have said that they would not “choose homosexuality”, that it is not their choice and that it has been a difficult way to live. I empathize. I can only imagine based on my observations that homosexual tendencies (chose a different word if you want) are extremely difficult to live with and to overcome. I wish you no ill.

[Against Prop 8]

Oh no Ester! Maybe we should just start putting all the gays in internment camps so they don't infect our innocent children! Or maybe you should lock your children in a house for their whole lives so they aren't exposed to the evils of the world - especially the gays! We all know the WORSE thing that could happen to our children is them learning about gay marriage because then they might become gay too (it's contagious right?)

Ok that was completely sarcastic - people need to stop being so ignorant towards the gay community and just allow equality for all! This shouldn't have even been brought to a vote in the first place so i hope the courts overturn this yes on 8 nonsense!

[Nick]

I cant see how people can believe that it is reasonable to deny gays the right to marry, this thought process is just brought on society by dogmatic beliefs and only allowed through ignorance. I hope that the gay community would go and have a sitings-in until this ignorant religious amendment is removed

[BR SPer]

"I don't want to be married. I'm very happy with a civil partnership. If gay people want to get married, or get together, they should have a civil partnership," said John. "The word marriage, I think, puts a lot of people off. You get the same equal rights that we do when we have a civil partnership. Heterosexual people get married. We can have civil partnerships." ~ Elton John

Section 297.5 of the CA family code gives equal rights to gay partnerships; the same rights enjoyed by heterosexual marriages

[ph]

Why is marriage considered solely a religious endeavor?? There are millions of married couples in this country who do not subscribe to any religion and yet were afforded the privilege. Maybe we should take the privilege away from everyone who has not been attending church regularly too..........

[NoMoreMrNiceGay]

Be careful for you pray for. You just might get it!

All these prayers for the passing of Proposition 8 paid off. The good Lord saw fit to answer those prayers.

However, the end result will not be what the religious right intended. God's plan is that the passing of Proposition 8 will usher in a new era by which the courts on the state and federal level will review Proposition 8 and conclude is a violation of civil rights and strike it as null and void.

Gays will finally get the protection of the enactment of civil rights. It is the courts and not the voters who decide on the issue of civil rights just as it happened during the sixties when voter's rights and laws regarding discrimination based on race and national origin were enacted.

Thank you God!

[Emily C.]

Good. The people aren't always right, and they certainly aren't this time around. That's why we have courts and judges, because they know the law a whole lot better than the average voter.

[Rick]

It's important to make note of the fact that a few members of the Board of Supervisors don't represent the will of the millions of Angelenos they represent... much in the same way that 5,000,000 voters don't represent the will of all the 25,000,000 million citizens of California who are eligible to vote. At least one of these two minorities is speaking in defense of the rights guaranteed to ALL CITIZENS by the Constitution, and not in defense of their own personal prejudice or a "sense of what is right, in spite of the Constitution."

Proposition 8 may be the "will of 20% of the electorate," but it is certainly not the "will of the people." The Board should be lauded for taking matters into their own hands where the issue of constitutional rights is concerned. Certainly, the electorate can take THAT matter into their own hands on the next election day.

Bravo, L.A. Board of Supervisors.

[Rick]

@blake - the day that government starts dictating culture is the day that we have to take up arms against the government.

[Carina]

YES on PROP 8. Well said Paul. I will vote again and again.

[Rob B]

Way to go LA County! We appreciate you doing what is right. What amazes me is those that say the people voted. I liked this statement from Kelly H at 1:20pm, but felt she said a few things wrong... so here is the better version:

I am absolutely disgusted at the thought of staunch right wing conservatives trying to overturn the right of the people. The people voted according to how their church told them to and now the anti prop 8 people are trying to fight for their civil rights and overturn the decision. I am also disgusted at the thought that there are people around today that are still so biggoted and prejudiced, but I feel a great sense of pride that my taxpaying money is going to these legislators and supervisors to spend time on this issue. They should be involved as they are our last hope of having our rights restored. If I have the opportunity I will vote for each and every legislator who is even remotely connected to trying to overturn what was wrongly taken away from us... our civil right. Let me say this again.. THANK YOU LA COUNTY!!

[Wagner]

It's not surprising to hear people argue for supporting "the will of the voters" when they think it supports their belief. Where were these same people favoring the writing of religous morality into the constitution when the Stem Cell proposition passed.

This country was started with direct representative democracy, in town halls. California (and the county as a whole) is too huge to do that. But even at the start of the country, the people and their goverment realize the important of protecting certain rights of all, and not leaving these rights at the whim of any majority at any point in history. If the people voted to uphold slavery or to force immigrants back to their home lands, do you think some of the people who are not so concerned about upholding a popular vote would feel the same way? If a majority voted to allow freedom of religion, would you people who are so concerned about majority rules be so tight to grasp on to that?

No, you wouldn't. You just want to cover your bigotry and cloak it under something else. You can't put lipstick on a pig and call it something else, folks.

[peter girard]

If marriage is a religious institution, then why do prop 8 supporters assume that all churches and religions oppose gay marriage? Many support it. This country was founded on religious freedom, not "majority rules" religion! The only way civil unions would be fair is if they replaced marriage for EVERYONE. Separate but not equal was the basis of keeping the "traditional" values of not allowing inter racial marriage as well as segregation. The American values of liberty and justice to ALL will prevail, as the constitution and bill of rights can not be voted away, and the barriers of intolerance, ignorance and bigotry have a history in the USA of being OVERCOME!!!!

[uhg]

It's a states decision, if you don't like the states law you live in then move.

it's democracy deal with it.

And I voted no. I personly don't care either way. I do care about the state you live in having the states rights and respecting the democratic system it uses.

[Mike Langlois]

Our CREATOR instituted marriage. Historically the last thing a country does before it falls is to embrace homosexuality. So if you disregard a God that said this type of relationship is an abomination, at least consider history and learn from past errors. We are now considering removing a balance of power that will affect everyone eventually. When a measure is taken back after it was voted on twice and the high courts overturn the measure then we, the people, regardless of how you stand on prop 8 has lost everything. Please don't impose something on those of us that voted for prop 8 something that we find disgusting.

[Paul]

Re: Spv. Antonovich's comment that the legal challenge should have been done prior to the election. It's disturbing that one of the stewards of Los Angeles County government has demonstrated this level of ignorance regarding the initiative electroal process. This is the way it's done. An initiative is placed on the ballot by petitioners with the wording of their choosing. If it passes, its legality is tested. This is why so many of the initiatives are invalidated --- AFTER they're passed, rather than before. Supervisor Antonovich should know this.

Re: Concerns of some regarding the Court having jurisiction. This is basic Constitutional law. The framers (220 years ago) were concerned about the rights of the minority being aborgated by rule of the majority. So they setup the judiciary to protect the minority from the majority. In other words, the judiciary being asked to step in on this particular issue of "minority rights," is precisely the role that that the framers intended.

[L.A. mom]

Thank you L. A. County Board of Supervisors! I'm a straight, married, Christian mother of 3 who believes that all of our citizen's deserve equality under the law. Changing the constitution to take away rights from our fellow citizens is wrong. Black voting rights, integration, legalizing interracial marriage etc. would never have happened in some parts of our country if it had been put up to a popular vote. Thank you for having the courage to stand up for what is right!