Crowd outside state Supreme Court debates Prop. 8

Five minutes before the state Supreme Court released its decision on Prop. 8, the crowd in front of the courthouse in San Francisco had grown to several hundred.

Lavishly made-up Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence in their nuns habits debated the propriety of gay marriage and homosexuality with students from American River College, which claims to be the only college to support Prop. 8 before the election.

Sister Maudlin Mascara went chin-to-chin with student George Popko, 22.

"So you’re saying I choose to be homosexual,” Maudlin said.

Popko: “You choose to engage in homosexual behavior."

Maudlin: "So I choose to engage in homosexual behavior, how does that make me a bad person?"

Popko: "It’s unhealthy."

There appeared to be far more supporters of gay marriage outside the courthouse than defenders of Prop. 8.

--Maria La Ganga

Comments

[Alexander Dombroff]

This news is poorly written and lacks content. Where is the editorial control?

[eaglesrising]

GREAT DAY for California!!! Sanity prevailed!

[margareat lee]

IS THIS RULING AN EFFORT TO PASSIFY SOMEBODY? READING THE RULING MADE ME LAUGH. IT'S NONSENSE! EVERY HUMAN BEING MUST BE AFFORDED EQUAL RIGHTS!!! THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT IS QUESTIONING THE INTELLIGENCE OF THE GAY COMMUNITY AND SUPPORTERS, ESPECIALLY, WE, PARENTS OF GAY MEN AND WOMEN. THIS RULING IS UNACCEPTABLE!!!

MARGARET LEE, DENVER

[Jamie]

Popko doesn't know how to back up his stance. Makes him and his group look ignorant and uneducated.

[Charles Samson]

Remember, kids: it's okay to oppress a minority, as long as the majority votes for it!

(Yes, I realize that this decision wasn't about the moral implications of the Prop 8 vote so much as the legality of it. That doesn't make Prop 8 any less of a disgrace.)

[Stephen B]

This ruling upholds the will of the people of California. It is time the gay community accepts this decision. It is up to society to determine define marriage, not the individual. If we allow individuals to define marriage, then there can be no argument against polygamy or people who have tried to get married to their pets. It is up to we the people to define this institution, not the gay community alone. Thankfully the courts did the right thing and respected the rule of law and the will of the people.

[syddystar]

The choice was dumb. how can we continue to live in a world where people can marry for money and publicity but two people who truely love each other are told its not ok for them to get hitched. What ever happened to seperation of church and state? this isnt a question of morals but a question on legal oppression.

Cali made being Gay cool...now we have to choose Iowa?

[Hal W.]

PROP 8A: "Marriage is defined as between a WHITE man and a WHITE woman."

Do you think the CA Supreme Court would allow this proposition to stand? Of course not because the justices are more understanding of racial issues and less prejudiced against blacks and hispanics than toward gays. So much for equal treatment under the law and having justices free of heterosexist and religious biases.

Their decision reflects their ignorance and lack of understanding of what it means to truly live as a gay person. Because if they did know, they would have fully appreciated just how much gays will be treated unfairly under Prop 8, and thus ‘the scope’ of the issue, instead of trivializing it merely as word change only - marriage or partner.

[Marie]

"Cali made being Gay cool...now we have to choose Iowa?"

Cool?
Obviously California doesn't want to be known as the 'gay state.' You can take that to Iowa, Connecticut, Massachusettes, etc.

[darrell johnson]

To the author, Miss La Ganga: there were more opponents there like, the sisters of indulgence, because the propents that voted for Prop 8 are tax-paying citizens, who most likely had to work today, not, screw off in Sac. To those that are still pissed.........oh well, the majority has spoken, twice now. For once, the stench from the bench didn't dare overturn what the people of this state wanted. No matter how much the gay mafia has a rule over the media, and politicians with all their money and power, they couldn't overturn the will of the majority......Look, even your savior, BHO, won't go for it.......move on.

[Jonathan Burrows]

RE: Darrel Johnson,

It wasn't the "stench from the bench" as you stated, it was the hate from prop 8.

You are comfortably viewing this as an issue which does not affect you, you are sadly mistaken.

You and your ilk, the prejudiced and ignorant, sit in judgement of others, well, when your civil rights come up for a vote, we'll make sure to turn the other cheek, we wouldn't want this visited on you, yet you wish this for us.

SHAME ON YOU.

See you at the ballot box. The will of the people will triumph, and it won't be your version. Where does your small-mindedness come from - some perceived position of superiority?

I assure you, the days of Prop 8 are numbered, I wish upon you what has been inflicted upon gay people, to be publicly shunned and singled out for second class status, it might open your eyes and realize with this ruling we are all, every person in California, are made vulnerable by this ruling.

This was a dark day in California, and you and your beliefs could lead us down a road which we will not allow.

Enjoy your mnoment, we are organizing, this will not happen again, Remember, the tide is against you, and we will win, just nort this round.

You have shown yoiurself as a selfish and anti-social bigot. It must be very lonely there, sucks to be you.

[Imie]

I'm not even going to argue about gay marriage. This issue isn't suppose to be political let alone religiously charged, religulous! I'm sorry, but what is with this Popko guy? Most ethnic people like muslims and eastern europeans with deep religious beliefs can be SO homophobic. I had a muslim friend (here in the Bay Area, CA) who was kind to gays at first and one day I realized a friend of mines (hes a guy) was kind of flirting with him one day. Then my muslim friend was getting all freaked out, heh! He sent a long negative email message about homosexuality to my gay friend saying things like "I don't hate you, but I hate your SIN" etc. so on and so forth. So typical religious brainwashed language. They both didn't talk to each other ever again because of that email incident. See what ignorance and close-mindedness does to people? So REALLY sad.

[shadowman]

Popko: “You choose to engage in homosexual behavior."
Popko: "It’s unhealthy."

LOL, it's obvious Popko has no understanding of sexual orientation or even sex. Any sex with heterosexuals and homosexuals can be unhealthy. You don't choose whom you are sexually attracted to. Sexual orientation is not a choice. Sure, having sex is a choice, but sex and sexual orientation are 2 different things. And having sex is based on your sexual attractions, which is not a choice.

Virtually all major psychological and medical experts agree that sexual orientation is NOT a choice. Most gay people will tell you its not a choice. Common sense will tell you its not a choice. While science is relatively new to studying homosexuality, studies tend to indicate that its biological.

http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/03/differential-brain-activation.pdf
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/sex/dn14146-gay-brains-structured-like-those-of-the-opposite-sex.html
Gay, Straight Men's Brain Responses Differ
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,155990,00.html
http://www.livescience.com/health/060224_gay_genes.html
http://www.springerlink.com/content/w27453600k586276/
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2008/06/16/172/

There is overwhelming scientific evidence that homosexuality is not a choice.

[gjp43]

Simple question: Do those of you that support gay marriage also support polygamy? If not, why not? Is it because it has negative social repercussions? If you do support it, do you also support a bi-sexual man to be simultaneous married to a man and a woman, and so on? I am fairly new to this debate in general and I have yet to hear a truthful and rational answer to that question.

[Daniel]

I find it very unethical that Maria La Ganga, the author of this post would so distort the context and procession of this debate, so as to take the last quote of George Popko and totally misrepresent it. He didn't say that in response to the previous question posted at all, but she seems to have purposefully made it appear thus. Are there not certain journalistic standards and a code of ethics here? You can listen to the audio of the conversation/debate here: http://www.audiofarm.org/audiofiles/5007-heated-debate-between-pro-and-anti-gay-marriage-supporters#top ...for proof of an apparent attempt at totally mischaracterizing an otherwise seemingly intelligent student from American River College. Where is the integrity and professionalism of the LA Times as a news publication?