Labor unions, churches to fight gay marriage ban in court

Labor unions and some churches announced Tuesday that they planned to file friend-of-the-court briefs in support of invalidating Proposition 8, the November ballot initiative that banned gay marriage in the state.

The California Council of Churches and other faith organizations including the Progressive Jewish Alliance representing millions of members said they will file on Thursday.

On Friday, a coalition of labor unions representing more than 2 million California workers said they planned to file their own brief. The briefs will support the lawsuits filed by gay-rights groups the day after Proposition 8 was enacted.

The California Supreme Court has agreed to take the case and could hear arguments as soon as March.

Sal Rosselli, the president of United Healthcare Workers-West, issued a statement saying his union supported filing the brief because the right to marriage is a fundamental constitutional right "that cannot be abolished by ballot initiative. ... Our organizations stand for fairness and equality for working people — not only in the workplace but in all aspects of society."

--Jessica Garrison

Photo: Los Angeles Times file

Comments

[Gwen]

What a sad state of affairs when the losers of an election not only once but twice in this state continually cry foul when things don't go their way. Grow-up folks, get over yourselves and realize the world doesn't revolve around you. This isn't about rights since your trying to stripe me of mine. Shame on us for raising a bunch of whiny, everything has to be my way, selfish individuals who feel the majority has to bend to their whims. Our rights and priviledges are being violated by you who want everything your way. If you are so unhappy, create your own state or country for that matter and live in it.

[Jim]

Gwen, I'm curious exactly what right of yours is being stripped? Your right to impose your religion on me? Sorry, you never had that one. Your right to not be annoyed? Sorry, you never had that one either.

Nothing in the In re Marriages case removed any rights from any church, individual, or couple. The California education code was not changed. Those are all lies put out by the yes-on-8 camp to deceive you.

However, Proposition 8 does strip rights from gays and lesbians, who do not (despite the legislature's best intentions) get equal protection under the law with a domestic partnership.

[gregg]

Gwen - grow up. if someone told you couldn't marry the one you loved i am sure your piss poor attitude would change. I did marry my partner of 8 years only to be told by bigots like yourself that we may not be valid.

Obviously you don't know anyone who is gay or you wouldn't be saying this.

And the big push for this whole proposition was done by a group that doesn't even live here in california they were from Utah. Saying its against the bible. Great...the bible was written by men inspired by God.

I don't see anyone quoting the 10 Commandments which were WRITTEN by GOD, where is there anything on there about being GAY?

try that route now.

[Juan]

Gwen Said:
"This isn't about rights since your trying to stripe me of mine."

So just exactly what rights are being stripped? What will YOU lose by allowing SSM? How will this effect you? How is it even your business who other people marry?

Take your post and read it carefully. Are you talking to yourself? Maybe you should listen...

[Chris]

Gwen, are you saying that you would happily sit back and defer to the "will of the majority" if the voters decided to invalidate YOUR marriage or outlaw YOUR religion? Would you consider yourself to be a "whiner" in that situation?

[Liz in CA]

Gwen, the simple fact of the matter is, marriage is, above everything else, a CIVIL CONTRACT. If one wants to choose a religious marriage ceremony fine. We are protected by law that any two legal-age persons of sound mind may enter into a contract and not be subject to discrimination based on gender. This Proposition has now attempted to block TWO MEN or TWO WOMEN from entering into a CIVIL CONTRACT of marriage. *THAT* is unconstsitutional. End of story.

Just looked out the window - I don't seem to see anarchy ruling the streets or the sky falling, or heterosexual marriages crashing and burning any more than what they do already in a no-fault state, after the gay marriages we've already had here. Oh, whoops, gee, I guess that was what you pro-8'rs were afraid of -- NOTHING would happen!

I want the right to enter into a CIVIL CONTRACT OF MARRIAGE with the woman I've known for 30 years, been monogamous with for 12, and intend to spend the rest of my life with, having stood by her and seen her be cured of cervical cancer, etc. Isn't that what a real FAMILY VALUE is? As a free, adult human being, I deserve to partner with whomever I choose, in a MARRIAGE so that I can also enjoy the tax benefits, inheritance rights, insurance etc. etc. benefits that men-women marriages do.

It is so very easy, when you have something, to tell someone else that they may not have it.

But one day, because of your narrow-mindedness, before you've realized it, that will come back to you. Then you'll know how it feels.

[Dan Dormann]

This is one of the most important constitutional law cases of our times. The principle of equality of law goes to the heart of almost any modern constitutional document. The abrogration of this principle is unprecedented. No constitutional court has ever allowed the abolition of fundamental rights. I believe that the honorable justices of the Cali Supreme Court will not allow the core of the constitution to die. California is neither Iran (Sharia Law) nor Weimar (Germany before the Nazis took over).

[Chris]

Dan -- Couldn't agree more. Prop 8 sets up a very dangerous precedent that anyone's "fundemental rights" -- and yes they were defined that way on 11/4/08 and still are -- can be taken away be a simple majority vote. Redheads? Left-handers? Overweight people? Drivers over 65? Watch out -- you're out of the mainstream!

Or as the Labor people point out the right to picket is illegal in Alabama but is guaranteed in California constitution -- for the time being.

[Sloppy Joe]

I'll stop fighting for the right to marry the man I love when the government stops collecting taxes from me.

[ikahana]

Gwen says - "If you are so unhappy, create your own state or country for that matter and live in it."

Actually Gwen, I already have my own state and country. I don't need to start a new one. I need to fight for my rights within the one I'm a part of, which is the patriotic thing to do. You actually aren't the only one who lives in this country. The folks who think like you aren't the only ones who live in this country. We all live here, and we have to protect our rights.

Not one single right of yours has been violated thus far, nor will be violated if same sex marriage becomes legal. Legalizing divorce doesn't mean you have to be divorced. Legalizing adoption doesn't mean you have to adopt. Legalizing...coffee use, walking on sidewalks, driving - doesn't mean you have to do those things. Those things are all legal - how is that working out for you? You will still have all of your rights to marry a man if that is what you wish. Won't change a thing, except that all Americans will be treated equally and one group will have to stop perceiving themselves as a special and superior group of folks.

[jeff]

It amazes me how the opposition criticizes for us fighting for this. It is our LIVES we are fighting for....not some lark of an experience, but a major milestone in life: Marrying the one we love above all others.

[AlanW]

The Constitution of the United States was written to, among other things, protect the minority from the majority. If the people in Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, Arkansas, and other Southern States would have had the right to vote against civil rights for Blacks they would have and segregation would have thrived for many more years than it did. Instead the Government said enough was enough and gave the minority their rights. The Government really needs to step in and give all people equal rights and one of those is to marry who they wish. I am so sick and tired of narrow minded, hateful, discriminating, bigoted haters who pretend they are not because they have a "friend" who is gay yet they do not want them to be treated equally. These people need to look deep in their dark hearts and admit the truth, get on with their own lives and leave mine alone. These supposedly religious people need to think about what they will tell God when standing before him to be judged. How about, "I don't think that people should be equal to me, I am better than everyone else, I lied, I hated my neighbor, but I am a good person" God has a good laugh and sends you where you belong.

[All Clocks Run Backwards]

I don't think they're whining, Gwen. I think they're kicking your butt.

[robert]

amazing how the secular leftist and thier minions in the media seem to think this is about a civil right nothing could be further from the truth. ones perverted
and very destructive lifestyle should never ever be elevated to a civil right any clear thinking person would agree (just ask the brave voters in Arizona and Florida ) I suppose members of nambla, polygimist, necrofeliacs and peaople who engage in beastiality all have a right to engage in thier perversion as well
where you you draw the line. You lost Rational moral judgement won GET OVER IT AND MOVE ON!

[JohnV]

Keep the Faith Gwen.... It took a lot of courage to post what you did knowing full well the firestorm that would follow. We vote about things in this country. The people of California spoke twice about this. If need be they will speak again.

[Former_Democrat]

The sad thing is that gays have the same right as everyone else, to marry someone of the opposite sex. The problem is they want special treatment and rights, just like with hate crimes, yet not one of them who spat on and used the "N" word in southern California against blacks and Bible believing churches will face hate crime charges even though theirs is a hate crime. It is time Congress disbanded union and charged them under the RICO statutes because they are criminal organizations that take their members money and squandser it on illegal and immoral things. Oh yeah, I forgot that liberals and Dems are supported by unions so that ain't going to happen. You cannot be a person of moral nor integrity and vote Democrat today, because they have none. To do so make your life a hypocrisy and a lie.

[Renee Horne]

I agree with you Gwen!!!! The people of California spoke loud and clear. GET OVER IT SODOMITES and those that support you!!!

[Atlas Collins]

Why can't homosexuals grasp the simple concept that the issue is about hygiene and not hate.

Good and wholesome normal people simply do not want their Marriages smeared with the fecal filth of homosexual sodomy.

You are all perfectly free to live your filthy and disgusting "lifestyles" all you want -- you are not free to IMPOSE your amoral and repugnant hedonism upon the rest of us.

Atlas Collins

åß

[George Lewis]

The fundamental fact that marriage has been between a man and woman, and ordained by God has not changed throughout history. As someone who has experienced, and still experiences racism I am always appalled at anyone comparing this to the Civil Rights struggles that we saw in the south.

Just because one yells, attacks, carries on or bashes people over the head with your view of the world, does not make it true.

I believe that it many states, homosexuals can enter into civil union. Now marriage is defined as a religous ceremony, confessed before God (Wikipedia not withstanding). It is amazing to think that throughout history all societies had it wrong, and a brilliant minority in California have solved the puzzle.

Time will tell who is wrong. The concept of Yin & Yang was so prevalent throughout California in the last 20 years that I lived there...and that includes the homosexual community. But I guess not when it comes to this huh?

This time the minority will not be victorious and Thank God for that.

[arguenaut]

Prop 8 is a legal definition of "marriage." It is the definition that has been taken for granted by sane people from the begining of human history up till now. But since the gays want to redefine marriage, the people were forced to put it in writing by a popular vote... twice. Nothing has changed. Prop 8 has not taken anything from anybody. The definition of "marriage" is still what it has always been.

[Jim]

robert, I can't believe you still haven't figured this out. Children, the dead, and animals cannot legally give consent. There's absolutely no correlation between same-sex marriage and any of those things.

JohnV, if I were to vote to ban your religion and get 52% of the population to vote along with me, would you turn to the courts and seek to get the vote overturned? The founding principal of a constitutional republic (which is what we have) is that the majority may not vote away the rights of the minority.

Former_Democrat, if we told you that you had the right to marry a member of the same sex, but not a member of the opposite sex, would you feel your right to choose how to form a family unit consistent with your own beliefs had been violated?

Renee Horne, when do we get to vote on your rights?

George Lewis, if you believe domestic partnership is truly equal to marriage, then I suggest you work to get government out of the marriage business altogether and get a domestic partnership instead.

arguenaut, if we stick to the "traditional" definition of marriage, then a man may have as many wives as he wants and women may not choose their husbands; men may rape the maid if he's not satisfied with his wife's child-bearing capabilities; and women who disobey their husband could be killed by him. Thank God the traditional definition has been re-thought by every generation since then!

[AJG]

This is not true Constitution of the United States was written to, among other things, protect the minority from the majority. Initially the constition did not outlaw slavery. The US Constituion was passed in 1787. Ninety years later ain 1865, the 13th amendment was passed abolishing slavery. The situation is really simple here. A few years ago a majority of the people in the State of CA passed prop 22 recognizing marriage between a Man and Woman. Since then you have the legislature increasing the right of same sex couples and eventually the CA Supreme Court saying Hey that's not right Homosexuals should be allowed to marry. A majority of the voters in 2008 supported the passage of Prop 8 marriage amendment. Why should harass those organizations that donated to support the amendment or defeat the amendment. Accoring to an article here on the latimes this "supporters of Proposition 8 had raised $27.5 million, with about 19% of the money coming from outside California. Opponents have raised $31.2 million, with 34% of the money coming from outside the state." Stop complaining that people in Utah passed this Amendment. Opponnents of Prop 8 raised 4.3 million dollars more money than Supporter or Prop 8 and 34% of the total amount donated was from people outside the CA went to proponents. Then we have the protesters that picketted against Businesses that supported Prop 8. Most legal experts say that the Supreme Court will not overturn Prop 8. If that is the case I would encourage homosexuals to unite and place an Amendment on the Ballot to overturn Prop 8. I believe eventually California will have same sex marriage.

[BT]

Jim: "The founding principal of a constitutional republic (which is what we have) is that the majority may not vote away the rights of the minority."
Where does it say that, Jim, or is that just something you've heard drummed into your head over and over so now you believe it? Someone's ideas will be the basis of our laws, and it's either going to be the majority or the minority. I guess you're saying that the minority should rule the majority, which makes absolutely no sense. That's why we have elections...so the people can have a voice.

On the other hand, maybe you're right. So let's see, since the majority of Americans voted for Obama, that means the minority voted for McCain. So because Obama will be taking away the rights of conservatives (the right to say what they want on the radio through the Fairness Doctrine; the right to free speech through hate crimes legislation; the right to do what they want with their money through higher taxes; the right to bear arms through gun control; etc.), McCain should be the next President, right?

After all, the majority shouldn't control or inhibit the minority because that's not our Constitution was based on.

[Jim]

BT, you ask where the Constitution guarantees equal protection for all? Let's see. The First Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment are the biggies. (Yes, the Bill of Rights were added only after ratification, but ratification came on the promise that the Bill of Rights would be added. Our Founding Fathers considered it that important.) Here in California it's Article I of our state constitution. Give them both a read sometime. You'll find them enlightening.

I'm curious what rights having an elected representative you didn't vote for abridges. If Obama seeks, for example, to take away your right to bear arms, you would have recourse in the courts. That's what they're there for. Or would that be turning to "activist judges" to "circumvent the will of the people?"

[BT]

Jim, you're confusing the issue. I didn't ask where the Constitution guarantees equal protection. I asked where it says that the majority may not vote away the rights of the minority. The answer is it does not.

Regarding the challenge to Prop 8 in the courts...that's not an issue. What will be an issue is if when the court upholds Prop 8, you and your friends continue to show bigoted hate toward those who don't believe like you do by harassing them. Your true colors will be on display and we'll see just how tolerant you are of others.

Further, marriage is not a right like you would have us believe. It is a privilege. By definition a right is something that is available to everyone without qualification or limitation. One example is the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty when charged with a crime.

Marriage is not a right because there are legitimate qualifications to get married, like you have to be age 18 or older, you cannot marry a close relative, you can only marry those of the opposite sex, etc. These are legitimate societal limitations, so marriage is clearly not a right.

Besides, if you say that 2 people of the same sex should be able to be married, then who are you to limit it to that? Who are you to say that 10 people couldn't marry each other, or a father and his daughter, or a 65 year old man and an underage girl? The possibilities are numerous. If marriage is based solely on people loving each other, then every other combination must be allowed. Otherwise, they would not be afforded equal protection under the Constitution based on your argument.